TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): They both concern the exact scope of the case.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): I think that it is important to know exactly what we are speaking about.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): My first question goes to the applicant.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): In your application, you are invoking only Article 10 of the convention.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): You do not invoke Article 11 on the freedom of assembly.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): However, in contesting that the impugned interference was prescribed by law, your observations to the Grand Chamber mentioned the following, and a small quotation from paragraph 86 of your observations.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): You say, the police's decision to treat the demonstration as a riot following its order for the public to disperse was questionable.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): And then the extent of aggressive behavior was relatively small, and so on.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): So apparently, you contest the legal basis of the police decision to disperse the demonstration.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): So my question is whether you could clarify your position in respect of the scope of this case.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): The second question goes to the government.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): The agent, Mr. Kosonen, and you have repeatedly mentioned the
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): term of rioting.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Could you please clarify the meaning and scope of this term under national law and practice?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Dutch Spano.
Robert Spano (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President.
Robert Spano (Judge): A quick question to the government for clarification of factual assertions made by the government here today as regards the real-time assessment of the need for apprehension.
Robert Spano (Judge): The applicant mentions at paragraph 133 of their observations the testimony given by the apprehending police officer, Mr. Tero Kivikangas, where he says, Mr. Pentikäinen
Robert Spano (Judge): asked why he was being arrested, to which I replied that this was not an arrest but an apprehension.
Robert Spano (Judge): So my question is, is the government contention or submitting now that when the police apprehended the applicant, which I assume was based on the measure according to the Police Act, the police was not reacting to the disobedience of an order, but the police was apprehending the applicant to remove a disturbance according to the Police Act.
Robert Spano (Judge): So the fact that the assessment of the necessity of the interference being a disobedience of an order, that is not made by the police but by prosecutorial discretion or authorities at a later stage.
Robert Spano (Judge): Could I get a clarification on that issue as in my view it can have a bearing on proportionality?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Judge Spano.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Judge Kūris.
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): Thank you.
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): I have one question to the applicant, a factual question.
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): You mentioned, the lawyers mentioned, and it's in the file, that there was a call from the applicant to his employer or the editor of the magazine.
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): Could you please retell in as great detail as possible if you wish, the contents of that conversation?
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): Who asked what?
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): Who said what?
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): And whose was the final word?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you Judge Kūris, Judge Dedov.
Dmitry Dedov (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President.
Dmitry Dedov (Judge): I have a question to first to the applicant.
Dmitry Dedov (Judge): You said about social issues, freedom of expression, ideas of political importance, and the right to impart and receive information.
Dmitry Dedov (Judge): Could you please specify what kind of social issues you try to impart and then to information on some social issues important to the public during this demonstration?
Dmitry Dedov (Judge): And the question to the government, were there any position on such public issues of public debate was manifested by the demonstration?
Dmitry Dedov (Judge): So in fact, what it was, a demonstration or a crowd?
Dmitry Dedov (Judge): Thank you.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So we will have a break now and the hearing will resume at 10 to 11.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Please sit down, the hearing is resumed.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So...
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President and the members of the court,
AP1 (Applicant): as Judge Hirvela asked, whether the police hampered on journalistic work and was these allocations brought before the chamber?
AP1 (Applicant): These allocations are based on the hearing of a witness, Helminen, who witnessed four pentagon in the District Court of Helsinki.
AP1 (Applicant): He had said in the witness statement that the police actively hampered their work with shields and they tried to block photographers from photographing the event with feet and setting shields in front of a photographer.
AP1 (Applicant): And I endorse that the constable, Kivi Kangas, was aware that the applicant was a journalist on that time when he apprehended the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the question brought by the Silvis, the chief of editor, the judge Silvis, the chief of editor tried constantly calling to the police stations to find out where they hold the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the police stations answered that they were giving only details about the detention to their family members and he would not have a right to get information about where he was at the time of detention.
AP1 (Applicant): So therefore, he had told the applicant to go to the scene to photograph and he had interest in getting those photos back.
AP1 (Applicant): But I have to tell that the applicant has not before told that the claim that he had to give the memory cards to a colleague, this has not been brought before the district court of Helsinki or from the chamber.
AP1 (Applicant): But he has written about this on his article.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the question asked by Judge Motok, the chilling effect comes in question.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant had to pay all the legal costs and not everyone can afford them.
AP1 (Applicant): The journalists in Finland are obeying the orders of the police strictly.
AP1 (Applicant): So this could mean that in the future, when the police doesn't want that the incident would come into the public, they could give disproportionate disperse order and the media could not work as a watchdog of the government.
AP1 (Applicant): And to the question asked by Judge Dedov, the social issues which were brought to the light were those that the demonstrators opposite the head of the states and the Asia-Europe Intergovernmental Summit.
AP1 (Applicant): The most relevant social issue was that there were a lot of bystanders on the event, not so many demonstrators, and the police used excessive force to detain them.
AP1 (Applicant): And this was very interesting for the media and I think this is the information which the public has also the right to receive.
AP1 (Applicant): And under the complaints, I would turn to my colleague, Mr Mattilainen.
AP3 (Applicant): as for the Judge Podolsky's question on what kind of extreme situation or what are the criteria for the journalist to refuse to obey the orders of the police in extreme situation, I would like to endorse that, as we have mentioned in our written submissions, even journalists are equal before the law.
AP3 (Applicant): But here is the question, is another type of...
AP3 (Applicant): The question is, is police able to give, in such circumstances, orders that are not necessary?
AP3 (Applicant): As well, we have admitted that it might be challenging for the police to distinguish people in these kind of extreme situations, where the events transform rapidly.
AP3 (Applicant): But the applicant views that if the journalist is seemingly recognizable by a vest or a card, he or she should be leaving peace.
AP3 (Applicant): Or if the police him or herself has admitted factually that he or she has apprended a journalist, the journalist should be leaving peace, as was the case in the applicant's case.
AP3 (Applicant): Now, as for Judge Siciliano's question about the scope of this case, or the extent of the scope, we have actually not contested the police's right to give an order for the crowd to disperse or order the demonstration to be stopped.
AP3 (Applicant): We have mainly, and I want to emphasize mainly, contested the police's right to apprehend people for the sheer fact that they were part of the event that the police declared as a riot, without making any kind of distinction between potentially violent individuals or other demonstrators.
AP2 (Applicant): Dear Mr. President, members of the court,
AP2 (Applicant): regarding to Judge Kyrgyz's question about the phone calls made during the demonstration, I was almost nine years ago present at this demonstration.
AP2 (Applicant): And towards the end of the demonstration, I noticed more aggressive use of force by the police against the seemingly peaceful and so-called neutral demonstrators.
AP2 (Applicant): And after this situation, as I have told also in Helsinki District Court and first interrogations, there were efforts from police to hamper photographing those arrests where they were using excessive force.
AP2 (Applicant): And immediately after this happening, I made a phone call to my employer, and I said that the situation is turning strange.
AP2 (Applicant): The police is now attacking demonstrators.
AP2 (Applicant): And I asked what to do, and he said to me, try your best to do your work and document everything what happens.
AP2 (Applicant): And there was other phone call just right after I was apprehended.
AP2 (Applicant): And in this phone call, I only told that I have been now apprehended by police.
AP2 (Applicant): And my photographic gear is going to be confiscated.
AP2 (Applicant): And I asked for the possibility to give the memory cards, and that was not possible at that time.
AP1 (Applicant): Still to the question, what Judge Motok asked, if there were any investigation of the police behavior, there were some complaints about the behavior of the police.
AP1 (Applicant): There was even a criminal prosecution pending.
AP1 (Applicant): But the prosecutor and the police could not identify which policemen had detained bystanders and which policemen had acted against the police act.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the charges were dropped because the identification of the policemen were not known.
AP1 (Applicant): Also, many journalists complained about the behavior of the police.
AP1 (Applicant): Actually, the Union of Journalists in Finland had a discussion with the Ministry of the Interior after the event where we discussed about the case.
AP1 (Applicant): And we tried to make principles so that this kind of case would not happen in the future.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Have you finished your submission?
AP1 (Applicant): Yes, thank you for your attention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So then I give the floor to Mr. Kosonen.
GR1 (Government): Various questions to the government also.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, concerning the separate area which was there, which is now, I think, a fact which we can say that both parties are of that opinion after what we have said and what we have said in our address too.
GR1 (Government): There was a separate area, and the visibility from that area, which is just behind the other part of the Mannerheim, to this place where demonstration took place.
GR1 (Government): Very, very nice view from there, and as you can see, you have certainly looked at the video, and there you can see it, just on the other side of the street, and there was also a television crew just filming there.
GR1 (Government): Of course, when the riot or demonstration became violent, the police has to act in a certain way, and then there were buses, which of course restricted the visibility from that separate area to the place where the demonstrators were, and the demonstration event took place.
GR1 (Government): But as I said in my address, this was not planned to do so, to be so. The idea was that from that area,
GR1 (Government): the public, the media has a good place to cover everything, and unfortunately, it became violent, and the reason for that was that no march could be taken and so forth.
GR1 (Government): But anyway, it's true, it certainly was a good idea to have a demonstration, and I think that the applicant had the choice to be somewhere else, all the journalists could be somewhere else, and the applicant was very near to the demonstrators, and now his visibility was not hindered in any way.
GR1 (Government): As regards the question of whether there was a demonstration or demonstrators, or whether it was a crowd, first there was a demonstration, but quite soon, police ordered it to be ended, and that was not peaceful anymore, there was no demonstration anymore, and then of course you can just see that there was a crowd.
GR1 (Government): And our legislation refers to a crowd which the police can order to disperse.
GR1 (Government): And the applicant was part of that crowd, certainly.
GR1 (Government): As regards the Finnish Secret Service and its examinations and its statements and documents, they were useful, and that also related to earlier demonstrations which had taken place one or a couple of years earlier, and that's evident also from the facts of the case.
GR1 (Government): And the police used that, and regretfully it found to be like the Secret Service was estimated.
GR1 (Government): Then, the Finnish Secret Service, and then concerning, well I have one point here, and then concerning, well I have one point here, and then concerning, well I have one point here, which relates to the reasoning of the district court, or the reasoning of the issue, and the applicant had said here that there was no reasoning at all.
GR1 (Government): And I already explained in my address how the district court's judgment must be analyzed.
GR1 (Government): As regards the Supreme Court, there was a leave to appeal proceed, so it's of course, it's such that there's, it's not required that there should be reasonings.
GR1 (Government): It's under your court's case law, too.
GR1 (Government): And, well I can perhaps continue after Madam Mayuri has explained the legislation and how it affects apprehension and detention and so forth.
GR1 (Government): Madam Mayor, would you, with your indulgence, of course.
GR2 (Government): Mr. President, there was a question about the length of the apprehension,
GR2 (Government): and I will now explain a little bit of the legal background of that.
GR2 (Government): Actually, I refer to the government's address earlier today.
GR2 (Government): Government tried to give clarification of the relevant legislation at that time, and the relevant act is the Coercive Measures Act, and particularly sections two and three from the chapter one.
GR2 (Government): The Coercive Measures Act requires that in order to have the possibility to apprehend for maximum 24 hours, there has to be prerequisites for arrest at present.
GR2 (Government): And in government's view, there were prerequisites of arrest at present.
GR2 (Government): Firstly, the applicant was apprehended on the basis of rioting, and the maximum punishment is one year imprisonment for rioting.
GR2 (Government): And I refer to the subsection two of the Coercive Measures Act.
GR2 (Government): So this fulfills the requirements of the act in this respect.
GR2 (Government): And secondly, persons who were suspected of rioting would have probably continued with the criminal activity rioting later on, and this fulfills subsection c requirement.
GR2 (Government): I mean in the Coercive Measures Act, the requirement of the intention of continuing criminal activity.
GR2 (Government): But I also like to emphasize the importance of second paragraph of section three, which came up in government's address today.
GR2 (Government): And probably it's good for understanding if I read, if I quote the subjects, because it goes like this.
GR2 (Government): When there is a cause to suspect a person of an offense, he may be arrested even though there is not probable cause.
GR2 (Government): Not probable cause for the suspicion, but the other prerequisites for arrest stipulated in paragraph one exist.
GR2 (Government): And the taking of the suspect into custody is very important because of expected further clarification.
GR2 (Government): So in this particular case, it was important to have further clarification on the matter.
GR2 (Government): And as the subsection which I quoted says, it isn't obligatory to have a cause, probable cause to suspect, but cause to suspect is enough.
GR2 (Government): And I also like to emphasize that usually the prerequisites of arrest, they clarify later on when the investigation goes on.
GR2 (Government): So they are not at hand in the beginning.
GR2 (Government): And one also has to remember in this case that there was a considerable amount of persons being detained at that time.
GR2 (Government): The amount was 121 persons in detention.
GR2 (Government): So this also has to be taken into account when considering the length of detention.
GR2 (Government): But the government's view is that the prerequisites of arrest are fulfilled and also all the elements of Coercive Measures Act, the provisions are fulfilled in this case.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, may I still have a few words
GR1 (Government): concerning firstly what the applicant and his representatives said about the filming or that the police hindered them, the applicant, to make photos or others.
GR1 (Government): What Mr. Helminen said in the district court,
GR1 (Government): he was invited by the applicant to be there.
GR1 (Government): He said, he indeed said that, argued that the police hindered photographing with their shields and legs.
GR1 (Government): And you can see in those videos just the situation very well, which I also expressed in my, indicated or explained in my address that it was rather, it was a normal, let's say normal painting situation where a certain person had been marked and then the police came and took him away behind the cordon.
GR1 (Government): And during that time, there was a rush of photographers to the place and they were very near to the police faces and the police naturally could take place.
GR1 (Government): They raised their shields, but these shields are transparent.
GR1 (Government): That's one issue.
GR1 (Government): Another question, one question related to the fact whether what the government likes in general terms of demonstrations and I think demonstrations, they are allowed by the convention and constitution and they are, of course, there must be demonstration if need be and if people think so.
GR1 (Government): I don't have any idea about those, but this came while and therefore it had to be stopped and to protect the safety.
GR1 (Government): And finally, concerning, concerning, concerning, concerning, just a minute.
GR1 (Government): All right, I think that's it anyway, yes.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So, thank you very much.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The courts will now deliberate on the merits.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The judgment will be delivered later, and the parties will be informed of the date of delivery.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je vous prie de bien vouloir vous asseoir.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je déclare ouverte l'audience publique sur la recevabilité et le fonds de l'affaire S.A.S contre France.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): L'affaire a été introduite le 11 avril 2011 en vertu de l'article 34 de la Convention par une ressortissance française qui bénéficie de l'anonymat dans la procédure devant la Cour.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Elle a été attribuée à la 5e section de la Cour conformément à l'article 52, paragraphe 1 du règlement.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le 1er février 2012, elle a été communiquée au gouvernement.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le 28 mai 2013, une chambre constituée au sein de la 5e section s'est dessaisie au profit de la grande chambre, aucune des parties ne s'y étant opposées.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Les organisations non gouvernementales, Amnesty International, Liberty, Open Society Justice Initiative et Article 19, ainsi que le Centre des droits de l'homme de l'Université de Gant et le gouvernement belge ont été autorisés à soumettre des observations écrites en tant que tiers intervenants en vertu de l'article 44, paragraphe 3 du règlement.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le gouvernement belge a également été autorisé à prendre part à l'audience.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le gouvernement défendeur est représenté par son agente, Mme Edwige Belliard, directrice des affaires juridiques au ministère des Affaires étrangères, et par Mme Nathalie Acel, sous-directrice des droits de l'homme au ministère des Affaires étrangères, co-agente, assistée de M. Sylvain Fournel et Rodolphe Feral,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): rédacteur à la sous-direction des droits de l'homme du ministère des Affaires étrangères.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mme Patricia Rouault-Chalier, sous-directrice des affaires juridiques générales et du contentieux au ministère de la Justice, et M. Eric Dumand, chef du Bureau du droit
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): et du contentieux européen international et institutionnel au ministère de l'Intérieur, conseiller.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): La requérante est représentée par M. Ramby De Mello
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): et Tony Muman, assisté de Mme Anastasia Vakulenko et M. Satvinder Singh Juss,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): et M. Eirik Bjorge et Ashraf Ali, conseil.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le gouvernement belge est représenté par sa co-agente, Mme Isabelle Niedlispacher.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ayant consulté l'agente du gouvernement défendeur, les représentants de la requérante et la représentante du gouvernement belge, j'ai fixé ainsi l'ordre de parole.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Nous entendrons successivement Mme Belliard pour le gouvernement défendeur, puis M. De Mello et Muman pour la requérante,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): et enfin Mme Niedlispacher pour le gouvernement tiers intervenant.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je salue également les groupes de magistrats suivants en visite à la Cour.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Une délégation de la Cour de cassation et du Conseil d'Etat français, un groupe de juges de la Cour suprême d'Ukraine, une délégation du Haut conseil des juges et procureurs de Turquie, un groupe de juges bulgares et un groupe de juges et procureurs allemands.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je dois expliquer qu'en suce de l'interprétation dans les deux langues officielles de la Cour, l'anglais et le français, l'interprétation en russe et en turc a été autorisée au profit des magistrats ukrainiens et turcs qui assistent à l'audience.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): La parole est à Mme Belliard.
GR1 (Government): M. le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges,
GR1 (Government): un État peut-il, pour protéger les conditions essentielles de la vie en commun, poser quelques limites très mesurées à la liberté vestimentaire dans l'espace public?
GR1 (Government): Autrement dit, peut-il faire usage de la marge d'appréciation qui est la sienne dans la recherche d'un équilibre entre la liberté de l'individu, d'une part, et l'intérêt public et les principes fondamentaux sur lesquels ils se fondent, d'autre part, en interdisant, uniquement dans cet espace partagé qu'est l'espace public, les tenues vestimentaires qui dissimulent le visage?
GR1 (Government): Telle est sur le fond la question aujourd'hui soumise à votre appréciation, dès lors que vous estimeriez la requête recevable, point sur lequel je reviendrai.
GR1 (Government): Afin d'éviter toute ambiguïté, il importe de rappeler le contenu exact de la loi du 11 octobre 2010, portant interdiction de la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, ainsi que le contexte dans lequel cette loi a été adoptée.
GR1 (Government): L'article 1er énonce la règle suivante.
GR1 (Government): Nul ne peut, dans l'espace public, porter une tenue destinée à dissimuler son visage.