TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): While the applicant may gain politically by presenting himself as a victim of political oppression, other people would certainly suffer from that.
GR1 (Government): The applicant has already announced that mass demonstrations would be held across Russia on 28th of January this year, which is this Saturday.
GR1 (Government): According to his own words in the blog, 90% of the gatherings were agreed with the authorities.
GR1 (Government): Nevertheless, he again called people to participate in non-agreed mass manifestations.
GR1 (Government): For example, he states that despite the meeting wasn't agreed, people should still demonstrate or invite people to ignore authorities' propositions and in any way go and demonstrate in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
GR1 (Government): All circumstances of the case show that the applicant wants national law to be enforced against him and his supporters.
GR1 (Government): He clearly wants to be arrested, while Russian authorities persuade no other purpose except for the legitimate one.
GR1 (Government): Given that the applicant's object was apparently to be arrested, there is some irony in his complaints about the limitation of his freedom.
GR1 (Government): Honorable judges, the government respectfully submit that firstly, there have been no violation of Article 5, 6, or 11.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, the complaint under Article 18, taken in conjunction with Article 11 or Article 5, doesn't trigger separate examination.
GR1 (Government): Finally, that there have been no violation of Article 14 or Article 18 of the convention in this case.
GR1 (Government): And this concludes my submission.
GR1 (Government): Thank you very much for your attention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mr. Galperin and I thank both parties for their submissions.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): And now I invite my colleagues, the judges of the Grand Chamber wishing to do so, to put their questions to the parties.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Once I see Judge Nußberger please.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Thank you, President.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): I would have two questions to the Russian government.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): First, I would like to understand the decision-making process when the riot police intervenes and disperses demonstrations.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): I guess there is some general strategy how to act.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Who elaborates this strategy?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): On which level is it done?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And then, when the police officers of the OMON, of the riot police, intervene, do they do it spontaneously?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Do they ask the headquarter who takes the respective orders?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): That would be my first question.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And my second question is for interpretation of Russian law.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): I understand that in every modern society it's sometimes necessary to queue up somewhere before an entrance of a theater or shop, wherever.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): It was a court building, you queue up.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And how do you then differentiate between queuing up – there might be many people – and between what you consider an assembly?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Thank you.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Judge Spano, please.
Robert Spano (Judge): Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Robert Spano (Judge): I have one question that I would like to pose to the applicant.
Robert Spano (Judge): As you're aware, one of the questions posed for the hearing and one of the issues the Grand Chamber is considering is the issue under Article 18.
Robert Spano (Judge): We have now a recent Grand Chamber judgment in a case called Metabishvili versus Georgia, where the court consolidates its case law on this issue.
Robert Spano (Judge): And one of the issues mentioned here today is the finding by the court that under Article 18, the so-called predominant purpose has to be or appeared to be the fundamental aspect of the case.
Robert Spano (Judge): So it is on that basis.
Robert Spano (Judge): And because there is an argument made by the government which hasn't been addressed here today or in your written pleadings, the government says in their observations, and I refer here to the observations of the 18th of December lodged with the court, in paragraph 13, the government says, in particular, Article 18 of the convention was expressly invoked by the applicant in only two out of his five applications.
Robert Spano (Judge): And those two applications relate to the first two episodes.
Robert Spano (Judge): Article 18 was not expressed, according to the government, was not expressly invoked by the applicant for the five last episodes.
Robert Spano (Judge): And the reference to political reasons or persecutions is not to be found in the initial application.
Robert Spano (Judge): Mr. Navalnyy said here today Article 18 is the key issue in the case.
Robert Spano (Judge): Could I then ask the applicant to elaborate, why is in Article 18, why didn't it form part of the initial pleadings by the applicant and an argumentation made already at the state of original applications within the court?
Robert Spano (Judge): And how would you answer the government's contention on this issue?
Robert Spano (Judge): Because, after all, that's one of the elements that we need to consider.
Robert Spano (Judge): Thank you.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Giorgio Ravarani, please.
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Merci, M. le Président.
Georges Ravarani (Judge): J'ai une question au gouvernement.
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Est-ce qu'en Russie, d'une manière générale, je me permets d'insister sur la notion de généralité et non sur le cas individuel dont la Corée saisit, les autorités font preuve de sévérité à l'égard de tous les manifestants dès lors qu'elles considèrent qu'une manifestation est illégale?
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Merci.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup. Now Judge Eicke please.
Tim Eicke (Judge): Thank you M. president. I have three blocks of questions. The first addresses the question of admissibility.
Tim Eicke (Judge): The first two elements of that go to the applicant. The government in paragraphs 11 to 15 of its observation to the Grand Chamber raises an objection of admissibility of the Article 5 complaint in relation to six out of the seven arrests complained of.
Tim Eicke (Judge): How does the applicant respond to that objection, which might of course go to the court's jurisdiction to consider these complaints, and how, if at all, do you say the court should deal with that objection now?
Tim Eicke (Judge): The same question arises in relation to Article 11, where the government in paragraphs 32 and 33 of its observation also expressly asserts, and they did again so today, that the applicant denied participating in a public assembly and did not raise the substance of the Article 11 complaint in the domestic courts.
Tim Eicke (Judge): There is, of course, then for the government the procedurally prior question, what you say is the adequate and effective remedy you say the applicant should have exhausted, and what evidence is there that confirms its adequacy and effectiveness.
Tim Eicke (Judge): The second block of question goes to Article 11 and deals with, again, the first element of it is addressed to the applicant.
Tim Eicke (Judge): The government's assertion, both in writing and today, that the applicant denied participating in a public assembly leads me to the question to ask, on what basis do you say, especially in relation to the solo picket on 27 October 2012 and the arrest while waiting outside the courthouse on 24 February 2014, that Article 11 was in fact engaged at all?
Tim Eicke (Judge): After all, as this court held in Tata and Farber v. Hungary, the term assembly under Article 11 has an autonomous meaning,
Tim Eicke (Judge): I pause here to query whether waiting outside a court building is even an expression, and that fits into Judge Nussberg's question, occurs in the public space, does not necessarily turn such event into an assembly.
Tim Eicke (Judge): Now that, of course, then leads me to the follow-up question for the government.
Tim Eicke (Judge): In that same case, this court reasoned that such an autonomous meaning serves the interests of the protection of the right against improper classification in national law.
Tim Eicke (Judge): The example the court gives in that case may well be pertinent to the present case.
Tim Eicke (Judge): It is this. By relying on the domestic law on assemblies and by implication of the court's case law in the context of Article 11, which accepts in principle that the imposition of prior notification may be justified, the authorities in that case were said to seek to create a prior restraint on the freedom of expression, which is incompatible with the free communication of ideas and might undermine freedom of expression.
Tim Eicke (Judge): The question for the government is this. Would you accept that reliance on the law of assemblies to justify the applicant's arrest, at least in relation to the two incidents identified, amount or might amount to an improper classification by the domestic authorities and or the courts, and or is capable of providing evidence relevant to the assessment of the applicant's complaint of bad faith or ulterior motives, which is currently pleaded under Article 18?
Tim Eicke (Judge): And finally, in relation to that complaint about bad faith and ulterior motive, of course, the government in its further observations in paragraph 28 relies on Article 17, abuse of rights in relation to an aspect of the applicant's claim.
Tim Eicke (Judge): The question I have is the case on bad faith and ulterior motives is, of course, currently pleaded and responded to under Article 18 of the Convention, limitation on the use of rights, on the restriction on rights.
Tim Eicke (Judge): Questions of both parties is this. Is there any reason why the court should be limited to considering this complaint solely by reference to Article 18 and why it could not also be classified as an abuse of rights under Article 17, an article which I said you raise, the government raises in relation to the applicant's complaint?
Tim Eicke (Judge): After all, in so far as relevant, that article provides that nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any state any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth therein or, perhaps importantly in this case, at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.
Tim Eicke (Judge): Thank you very much.
Tim Eicke (Judge): Thank you.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much, M. le juge de Sicilianos.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Thank you Mr. President. My question goes to the applicant.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): The agent of the government just presented some statistical data concerning the rallies organized by the applicant or by your movement saying that many of them have been authorized, regularly authorized.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Do you contest or confirm such affirmation?
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Thank you very much.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): If there are no further questions, the court will now withdraw for 20 minutes, following which the parties will be able to submit brief observations in reply to each other's submissions and reply to questions from the judges.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The hearing is suspended.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The hearing is resumed and I call Mrs. Maralyan.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Please.
AP1 (Applicant): Thank you, Mr. President.
AP1 (Applicant): First of all, I would like to briefly comment the government's submissions, oral submissions.
AP1 (Applicant): The government insists that the applicant recognizes that he has breached national laws.
AP1 (Applicant): However, there was no submission made by the applicant written or oral that will lead to such a conclusion.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant states that, referring to the court's case law, that the states have the right to have prior authorization requirement.
AP1 (Applicant): However, this should be also proportionate.
AP1 (Applicant): That was the idea of the applicant submitted in his written and oral submissions.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the hindrance of the traffic mentioned by the government in their written and oral submissions, the applicant states that he did not anyhow hinder the free circulation of the traffic or pedestrians, taking into consideration, first, the time and the amount of people.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant also draws the court's attention to the fact that there were so many police officers that, in fact, that there was the police force that somehow could hinder the traffic, but not the applicant himself.
AP1 (Applicant): Especially taking into consideration, for example, his solo picketing, after which he was detained, arrested and detained.
AP1 (Applicant): So it is interesting enough that a person who is walking down the street after the solo picketing, but is surrounded with some journalists, he cannot control those journalists.
AP1 (Applicant): And they couldn't anyhow hinder their free circulation.
AP1 (Applicant): Especially taking into consideration that, in Moscow, there are so many people that it is a usual thing for Moscow to have many people in the streets.
AP1 (Applicant): That was not a village where Mr. Navalny was
AP1 (Applicant): with the journalists, who could somehow make some nuisance to the people in that village.
AP1 (Applicant): Now, I would like to turn to the questions posed by the court to the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): The court is absolutely right to state that the applicant did not claim violation of Article 18 in all the applications.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the question was not raised only in the first applications.
AP1 (Applicant): The last applications of the applicant also raised this issue.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant demonstrated in the observations before the chamber that the applicant's right under Article 18 was violated.
AP1 (Applicant): So he raised this question in their observations and gave some response.
AP1 (Applicant): Furthermore, the chamber itself declared the applicant's claims under Article 18 in conjunction with Articles 5 and 11 as admissible.
AP1 (Applicant): So the court couldn't declare this case admissible if the applicant failed somehow to prove that there were reasons to consider that there was violation of this article.
AP1 (Applicant): Furthermore, dissenting judges considered that the applicant had proved the violation of Article 18 of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the question in respect of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of Articles 5 and 11, the applicant refers to the court's well-established case law that requests exhaustion only of effective remedies.
AP1 (Applicant): As the applicant has stated in his oral submissions, surprisingly, the judicial system somehow failed to be objective and reasonable while dealing with the cases of the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): And it is seen statistically and also seen by the judgments made by this very court.
AP1 (Applicant): In this case, the applicant states that the respondent's state judicial system cannot be considered as an effective remedy.
AP1 (Applicant): Nevertheless, the applicant did his best to exhaust the available remedies in the Russian Federation.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the question in respect of the applicant's denial before the national courts that he participated in conducting demonstrations, the applicant reaffirms this position as, first, he did not conduct any demonstrations.
AP1 (Applicant): He did not, in those episodes that are under examination of this court, he did not use any loudspeakers.
AP1 (Applicant): He did not chant any slogans.
AP1 (Applicant): He didn't do anything that could be considered as a conduct of a demonstration.
AP1 (Applicant): Further, he insists that he participated in peaceful assemblies, including solo picketing, as was mentioned, after which he was detained.
AP1 (Applicant): It is important to note that solo picketings, there is no requirement set up by the law of the Russian Federation that there should be a prior authorization to have to hold a solo picketing.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the assembly of 14 February, 2014, the applicant was, it is important to state that the applicant was among those who wished to be present at the hearing on Blotner case.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the national courts made a decision to ban the presence of the public at this hearing and to halt the hearing without the public presence.
AP1 (Applicant): So that was a prize for those who wanted to participate at that hearing.
AP1 (Applicant): And what was the reaction?
AP1 (Applicant): They just waited outside of the courthouse.
AP1 (Applicant): This cannot be, however, based on this one, cannot conclude that they were just people gathering there nearby the courthouse.
AP1 (Applicant): These were people who have concerns that the hearings on Blotner case will not be fair and who wanted to somehow peacefully support these people outside of the courthouse.
AP1 (Applicant): It is also noteworthy that the applicant was, in this very episode, the applicant was apprehended shortly after his arrival.
AP1 (Applicant): And it is very clearly seen in the video provided by the applicant that he was targeted and he was taken to the police vans without a single word, without any explanation why he is apprehended and what is the reason.
AP1 (Applicant): And it was not that all of the people were apprehended and taken to the police stations.
AP1 (Applicant): That was the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was surrounded by the riot police and taken to the police vans.
AP1 (Applicant): Yes.
AP1 (Applicant): I'm sorry.
AP1 (Applicant): And as to the last question regarding Article 17, the applicant states that Article 17 cannot anyhow be applicable here, as he did not have any intention to intentionally breach any law.
AP1 (Applicant): And it is proven by this court also when the court found in many occasions that the applicant's rights under Article 5, 6 were violated by the national authorities.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mrs. Maralyan.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Shall I consider from the applicant side, you have finished?
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Shall I call Mr.
AP2 (Applicant): We have also one patient and Mr. Navalnyy will address it.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Please, Mr. Navalny, you have the floor.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, first of all, I want to say that it was really a pleasure to listen what
AP2 (Applicant): a nice, comfortable political life I have in Moscow with my colleagues.
AP2 (Applicant): Short-term sentences, non-substantial fines, this is really very nice.
AP2 (Applicant): Of course, compared to Mr. Nelson Mandela, my life, my political life in Moscow is much
AP2 (Applicant): easier.
AP2 (Applicant): I want to address this question about statistics of the meeting.
AP2 (Applicant): And I want to say that this is a typical example of manipulation of facts and trying to trick this court, the statement that we have in 95 percent, we have authorization for our rallies.
AP2 (Applicant): And I'm very glad that our respectful opponent mentioned the national rally we have on this Sunday.
AP2 (Applicant): Yes, it's true.
AP2 (Applicant): We have authorization for this rally, which we have in more than 100 cities all over Russia.
AP2 (Applicant): But the question is, do we have authorization in Moscow, in St. Petersburg, in the major
AP2 (Applicant): cities?
AP2 (Applicant): The answer is no.
AP2 (Applicant): So technically, yes, but they give us this permission in the way of another political humiliation.
AP2 (Applicant): We don't allow to have our rallies in the centers of the city.
AP2 (Applicant): They give us permission for the far districts or literally in the far parks.
AP2 (Applicant): For example, this Sunday, they have a proposition for us to have a rally literally in the woods, in the park Sokolniki.
AP2 (Applicant): And of course, definitely I wrote in my blog that we will never agree to such a proposition, that we have our right to have our rallies in the same places when the pro-government movement have their rallies.
AP2 (Applicant): And obviously, in Russia now we have a major political events, election, and a lot of people are very disappointed that we have a non-competitive election.
AP2 (Applicant): It's at least half of population, and we definitely have our right to go in the centers of our city and have such rallies.
AP2 (Applicant): The same for situation with this rallies on election, which was mentioned by the government agent.
AP2 (Applicant): Yes, they have a reason to say, we gave you a lot of permission, but you, Mr. Navalny,
AP2 (Applicant): like a spoiled baby, don't want to use these permissions, and you are, as a government agent said, want to be arrested.
AP2 (Applicant): And you are literally harassing Russian government and asking to be arrested.
AP2 (Applicant): But the key issues, time and location.
AP2 (Applicant): Like we have authorization to have my meeting with the, during election, in the seven in the morning, on Monday, on kind of abandoned stadium.
AP2 (Applicant): This is vast majority of what they call permission for the rallies.
AP2 (Applicant): Of course, we cannot agree with that.
AP2 (Applicant): Of course, in this situation, I understand that there is a risk of being arrested, but I cannot, we cannot take such a condition of political game.
AP2 (Applicant): They have everything, and we should have our meetings in the seven in the morning on Monday.
AP2 (Applicant): So I want to, that's why I asked this court to consider the whole political context around this cases.
AP2 (Applicant): It's not just about five cases.
AP2 (Applicant): The system of ignoring our right to freedom of assembly.
AP2 (Applicant): How many times during last five years, me and my colleagues have a permission to have a meeting in the center of Moscow?
AP2 (Applicant): Within last five years?
AP2 (Applicant): Zero times.
AP2 (Applicant): How many times we have such a permission in St. Petersburg?
AP2 (Applicant): How many times other people who want to have a rally against corruption have their permission to organize meeting in the center of major city?
AP2 (Applicant): The question is timing.
AP2 (Applicant): The question is location.
AP2 (Applicant): And their permission is actually act of political humiliation of opposition.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mr. Navalnyy. Now I call Mr. Galperin, please.
GR1 (Government): Thank you very much.
GR1 (Government): And I was glad to hear answering analysis of the applicant that he understands in all times that he will be arrested if he will go to the non-agreed manifestations and he continues to do that.
GR1 (Government): And also for the permission of the court, I will start with the very brief comments of the applicant's allegations.
GR1 (Government): And when he was a quote of the answering of the President Putin on the press conference and comparing the applicant with Mr. Saakashvili,
GR1 (Government): and I'm not authorized for sure to comment that, but however, from my personal standpoint, they have very much in common taking into account first the violence and violent manifestations around them and third, that the crowd several times tried to pull them out of the police bus.
GR1 (Government): So I think that's sort of was the correct comparison.
GR1 (Government): Also answering on allegations of the applicant telling that applicants councils, telling that the police bus stayed far away from the manifestations.
GR1 (Government): And it is, I think, all policemen will confirm that as soon as the leader of the protest inside the police bus, the police by becoming the center of manifestation of any manifestation, people staying around that and which the court has seen on video provided rather by the applicant and numerous video in YouTube when we see these events.