TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): existed even before accessing the so-called communication.
AP1 (Applicant): It also proves that there is any serious lack of any serious reason to substantiate the termination.
AP1 (Applicant): That, as my colleague said, was based on a pre-existing dispute over a working condition.
AP1 (Applicant): So that was the origin of the dispute, which led to the employer basically tarnishing Mr. Barbulescu's right to private life.
AP1 (Applicant): And this also led to the employer's need to secure evidence to substantiate the termination of Mr. Barbulescu's employment.
AP1 (Applicant): Also, you have asked how could have such communication be revealed.
AP1 (Applicant): It's simple.
AP1 (Applicant): In the company, there was only one printer.
AP1 (Applicant): The communication was printed.
AP1 (Applicant): This printer was in the invoicing department where other two employees worked, not the managers of the company, but two employers who handled the accountancy and invoicing department.
AP1 (Applicant): So basically, everything, every piece of paper that was printed in this company went through that printer, including this communication.
AP1 (Applicant): You have asked how could have the colleagues known about this communication.
AP1 (Applicant): Because it was printed there, and because it was other employees who accessed the correspondence and entrusted this correspondence to the managers.
AP1 (Applicant): And Mr. Barbulescu always complained,
AP1 (Applicant): and actually complained more about the fact that it became public among his colleagues that freely discussed the sensitive content that was included in this correspondence.
AP1 (Applicant): And on a final note, the state asked us to consider the level of development of modern ways of communication in 2007.
AP1 (Applicant): Yahoo Messenger, which was used in this case, had in 2007 more than 62 million users.
AP1 (Applicant): That was the level of development of instant messaging in 2007.
AP1 (Applicant): Thank you, and I will allow my colleague to continue.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): You have the floor.
AP2 (Applicant): In response to the questions for the judges, first question put by Judge Ravarani referred to the applicant declarations about the account.
AP2 (Applicant): The account was made following employer initiative in order for the applicant to stay online and be contacted by potential clients.
AP2 (Applicant): That's a fact.
AP2 (Applicant): And standing online, he was available for all person who can see it.
AP2 (Applicant): And such, he was contacted by his brother and his fiance.
AP2 (Applicant): Every conversation was started by these two person.
AP2 (Applicant): Non-conversation was started by the applicant.
AP2 (Applicant): And in the content of the conversation, there are occasions when he write, he must go to undergo his duties, his tasks.
AP2 (Applicant): And he cannot have a conversation.
AP2 (Applicant): Another point, the conversation are very short.
AP2 (Applicant): There are instant messages.
AP2 (Applicant): He's online.
AP2 (Applicant): Supposedly, he's at a window and somebody go in front of this window.
AP2 (Applicant): It's the same thing.
AP2 (Applicant): They ask him something and he respond.
AP2 (Applicant): There are no large object of these conversations.
AP2 (Applicant): Also, he was the owner of the account because he is a sole detainer of password.
AP2 (Applicant): And only he could access this account in a legal mode.
AP2 (Applicant): What the employer did was to spy this account, to use spyware program to interfere with his messaging.
AP2 (Applicant): The only justification for this interference was namely to terminate this contract.
AP2 (Applicant): There is no interest for the employer.
AP2 (Applicant): The employer never invoke.
AP2 (Applicant): They have an interest to control these communications.
AP2 (Applicant): And the graphics of these communications, we don't know if they are real.
AP2 (Applicant): There are a chart that was put at our disposition, but we don't know if this is real.
AP2 (Applicant): It could be counterfeit.
AP2 (Applicant): It may be did it for causa.
AP2 (Applicant): Asking to the question of Judge Karakas, we didn't know.
AP2 (Applicant): And the applicant didn't remember if the notice was communicated.
AP2 (Applicant): He has at some point a copy which is not signed.
AP2 (Applicant): Now in the procedure, the last stage of the procedure, the government send us a copy which has a signature of the applicant.
AP2 (Applicant): We don't know if this is real.
AP2 (Applicant): The applicant didn't remember if he signed this notice.
AP2 (Applicant): Only thing he is remember at some point he has this copy in his possession, but he didn't remember if he signed it.
AP2 (Applicant): We don't know how it was communicated or even if it was communicated to the employees.
AP2 (Applicant): It's a thing to remark that this notice was not signed by any of employees.
AP2 (Applicant): There are just the employees from Bucharest office who signed it.
AP2 (Applicant): And we thought it was on purpose to be used at some point after the applicant was dismissed.
AP2 (Applicant): Another question.
AP2 (Applicant): In the same mode, we don't have a date.
AP2 (Applicant): We don't know if it was signed.
AP2 (Applicant): Referring to the personal account, this is indeed a personal account which was a very short time opened on the computer of an employer.
AP2 (Applicant): And there are just six messages recorded on this account.
AP2 (Applicant): The employee didn't use this account.
AP2 (Applicant): It was by accident opened.
AP2 (Applicant): And these six messages demonstrate that, but also demonstrate that the employer did have not any refrain to record and to interfere with this content of these accounts.
AP2 (Applicant): Both accounts are, in fact, personal accounts because for both of them, the applicant have the password.
AP2 (Applicant): And it was the only one he has a password.
AP2 (Applicant): The interception, the question of Judge Potocki, the interception was purpose of termination.
AP2 (Applicant): We deem it was not an interest for an employer to make such interception.
AP2 (Applicant): The employer didn't say that Mr. Barbulescu
AP2 (Applicant): didn't accomplish his duty service assignment.
AP2 (Applicant): And he is an employee who was promoted constantly until the moment when he was in disagree with work condition and with his bosses.
AP2 (Applicant): There is no damage the employer sustained, and there is no damage the employer invoked like an interest to spy the whole internet account of Mr. Barbulescu.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much. Now I call Mrs. Brumar on the floor, please.
GR1 (Government): In responding to the questions put by the honorable members of the court, as the applicant admitted, the account was created at his employer's request for professional purposes only.
GR1 (Government): The ban on using in the personal interest by the employees of offices facilities referred only to professional tools put at their disposal by the employer.
GR1 (Government): As such, computers and Internet connection were considered professional tools to be used only to perform working tasks.
GR1 (Government): That meant that you were entitled to use these facilities in your professional activity in work-related issues.
GR1 (Government): There is no indication that the employer was informed by the applicant on the existence of a personal Yahoo Messenger account.
GR1 (Government): The only account the employer could be considered to be aware of was the account that was created at his request.
GR1 (Government): The transcripts were printed on 13 July 2007.
GR1 (Government): The hour is not mentioned, and there is no indication of it in the domestic file.
GR1 (Government): But from the unfolding of the events and from the intermediate level type of monitoring that I will come back to, it can reasonably be concluded that the analysis was performed gradually.
GR1 (Government): This means that they were printed only after the first round of disciplinary proceedings.
GR1 (Government): No element in the case files indicate a prior disclosure.
GR1 (Government): It is with surprise that we've learned here today for the first time the applicant's explanation on what he considers to be a prior disclosure.
GR1 (Government): I do share a printer with my colleagues.
GR1 (Government): I find it rather difficult in just a glance or one minute to read 45 pages so as to have a clear perception of the content of the files printed and to be able to share the information with the colleagues.
GR1 (Government): So I consider that the explanation provided by the applicant today is not convincing.
GR1 (Government): As the graphics shows, the employer resorted to an intermediate level type of monitoring, controlling the traffic data consumption of all employees who had access to such facility in order to perform their tasks, not only the applicant.
GR1 (Government): The graphics show monitoring of the data, of the traffic data consumption for seven employees.
GR1 (Government): As the employees, as the employer explained in the domestic file, this monitoring was then read on the basis of the professional performance of the employees.
GR1 (Government): Only when large traffic data consumption not supported by an increase in sales or other similar results, they requested explanations and subsequently proceeded to the review of communications.
GR1 (Government): This was the unfolding of the events in the present case.
GR1 (Government): The employer only resorted to the review of communications when confronted with Mr.
GR1 (Government): Babulescu's firm affirmation on the professional nature of the communications.
GR1 (Government): It was not the use of Yahoo Messenger account that was considered suspicious.
GR1 (Government): It was the large discrepancy in internet traffic consumption without a proper reflection in the professional performance that made the employer search for further explanations of this situation.
GR1 (Government): As to the notification of the company-wide notice of 3 July 2007, I must admit that I am not aware of other forms of communication to the employees.
GR1 (Government): But what is certain is that it was acknowledged by all the employees in the Bucharest office that the signature, this means, or it might reasonably meant that each employee who signed read the notice and became aware of the information contained by it.
GR1 (Government): As the notice arrived through fax from Cluj headquarters on that day, the company-wide notice arrived to Cluj headquarters on that day.
GR1 (Government): And given the small numbers of employees in the Bucharest office, it is reasonably to consider that within hours the notice was disseminated through all Bucharest office.
GR1 (Government): The applicant was present at work as the presence should show on those days.
GR1 (Government): So he rapidly became aware of it.
GR1 (Government): The government would not raise at this stage, without ignoring the procedural requirements, a new exception of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
GR1 (Government): What the government wants to underline is that for the first time before the European Court, the applicant criticizes the alleged lack of protection of his personal data, the lack of effectivity of the criminal proceedings without at any moment before domestic authorities invoking these issues.
GR1 (Government): What the government meant is that for these reasons, that he did not give a proper opportunity to national authorities to examine these allegations, that they should not be taken into account in the analysis performed by the grand chamber.
GR1 (Government): As to the expectation of privacy, or the level of expectation of privacy that the present case is about, we believe that in the context, and given the particularities of the present case, the applicant, as the other employees of the private company, had no expectation of privacy when using offices facilities in personal interest.
GR1 (Government): This is why the case is not about recognizing or crystallizing the concept of internet as a component of a human right, but it's about the legal normal consequences drawn from a clear infringement of the employer's internal regulations that developed in the respect of the normative framework, its right to control the activity of the employees in fulfilling their professional tasks.
GR1 (Government): One last point, Mr. President.
GR1 (Government): The applicant, as his representatives stated here today, was, from the beginning, before the national authorities, assisted by a lawyer.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, we believe that aspects such as the fact that he was not aware of the existence of a remedy against the decision not to open criminal prosecution, or the fact that now he claims that he does not remember, or that graphics or the copy of the notice might be fake, we think that they are a little exaggerated and unfounded, as it is obviously a council's task to navigate its client through the normative framework.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Sit, please.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Good morning.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Janowiec and others versus Russia.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): The case originated in two applications lodged with the court under Article 34 of the Convention by 15 Polish nationals on 19 November 2007 and 24 May 2009.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): The applications were allocated to the Fifth Section of the court.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): On 5 July 2011, they were joined and declared admissible by a chamber constituted within that section.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): On 16 April 2012, the chamber delivered its judgment, in which it found that it was unable to take cognizance of the merits of the complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of 10 applicants and non-violation of that provision in respect of the other applicants.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): It also found that the respondent government had failed to comply with their obligations under Article 38 of the Convention.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): On 24 September 2012, the panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber decided to accept the applicant's request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): The Polish government expressed the wish to take part as third party in the written and oral proceedings before the Grand Chamber in conformity with Article 36, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Subsequently, leave was granted to the following organizations to submit written comments as third parties under Article 36, paragraph 2 of the Convention.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Open Society Justice Initiative, Amnesty International, and Public International Law and Policy Group.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): A group of three non-governmental organizations, Memorial, European Human Rights Advocacy Center, and Transitional Justice Network were also granted leave to make a joint written submission as third parties.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): The Russian government are represented by Mr. Matyushkin, the representative of the
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Russian Federation before the Court, assisted by Mr. Mikhaylov and Mr. Smirnov, advisors.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): At the hearing, the applicants are represented by Mr. Kamiński, Sochański, Szewczyk, counsel,
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): and the applicants, Mrs. Wołk-Jezierska, Mrs. Krzyszkowiak, and members of their families
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): are also present.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): The Polish government are represented by Mr. Szpunar, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Mrs. Mężykowska, counsel, and Mr. Schabas, advisor.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): I welcome the representatives of the parties in the name of the Court.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): I would also like to welcome delegations from the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors of Turkey, from the Greek Legal Council of State, and from the German Constitutional Court.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Having consulted the representatives of the parties, I have determined the order of address as follows.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Mr. Szewczyk and his colleagues for the applicants will speak first, then Mr. Matyushkin for
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): the Russian government, and finally Mrs. Mężykowska for the Polish government.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in two official languages of the Court, English and French, interpreting from Polish has been authorized for the oral submissions of Mr.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Szewczyk.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Moreover, interpreting to Turkish has been authorized for the benefit of the delegation of Turkish judges and prosecutors attending this hearing.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): The later interpreting is not arranged by the Court, and non-transcription of the oral translation will be included in the official record of the proceedings.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): I call Mr. Szewczyk.
AP2 (Applicant): Szanowny Panie Przewodniczący.
AP2 (Applicant): Szanowne Panie i Szanowni Panowie Sędziowie Wielkiej Izby Trybunału.
AP2 (Applicant): Ja reprezentuję Panów Jerzego Janowca, syna kapitana Andrzeja Janowca i Antoniego Trybowskiego, wnuka pułkownika Antoniego Nawratila.
AP2 (Applicant): Oficerowie ci zostali zamordowani wiosną 40 roku przez funkcjonariuszy NKWD w Charkowie.
AP2 (Applicant): Na pytanie Wielkiej Izby odnoszące się do artykułu 38 konwencji odpowiadam jednoznacznie, iż rząd Federacji Rosyjskiej, odmawiając Wysokiemu Trybunałowi przekazania kopii postanowienia z 21 września 2004 roku o umorzeniu śledztwa Dio 159, naruszył w sposób bezsporny artykuł 38 konwencji w związku z artykułem 27 Wiedeńskiej Konwencji Prawa Traktatów z 1969 roku.
AP2 (Applicant): Szeroko na ten temat wypowiedział się już Wysoki Trybunał w wyroku z 16 kwietnia ubiegłego roku w naszej sprawie w punktach 99 do 111.
AP2 (Applicant): Do jego uzasadnienia odnoszę się z pełnym uznaniem i aprobatą.
AP2 (Applicant): Ze względu na ograniczony czas mojego wystąpienia nie rozwijam szerzej tego tematu.
AP2 (Applicant): Z ubolewaniem natomiast twierdzam, że strona rosyjska przyjęła od pewnego czasu strategię totalnej negacji oraz ukrywania ustalonych wcześniej w sposób bezspornych faktów i okoliczności dotyczących zbrodni katyńskiej, które cała społeczność międzynarodowa poznała w najdrobniejszych szczegółach, dokonując jednoznacznych ocen historycznych, politycznych, moralnych i prawnych.
AP2 (Applicant): Utajnienie owego postanowienia z 2004 roku, z września i bardzo wielu dokumentów procesowych z nadaniem im klauzulu w zawierszenno-sekretności śletajne i to już po zakończeniu śledztwa było zabiegiem organu administracyjnego Rosji mającym na celu ukrycie przed światową opinią publiczną, przed rodzinami ofiar zbrodni, a w końcu także przed Wysokim Trybunałem danych i okoliczności tej zbrodni dokonanej przez NKWD w 1940 roku i sposobu jej wyjaśnienia przez dzisiejszą Rosję.
AP2 (Applicant): Przy czym nie jestem w stanie zrozumieć logiki tej decyzji. Przed 21 grudnia 2004 roku materiały śledztwa były jawne.
AP2 (Applicant): Studiowali je rosyjscy i zagraniczni historycy, prawnicy, dziennikarze. W oparciu o nie ukazywały się w wielotysięcznych nakładach i w wielu językach publikacje książkowe
AP2 (Applicant): odsłaniające wszystkie fakty i okoliczności tej zbrodni. Co więcej, w niektórych z nich zostało zamieszczone in extenso w postaci aneksu
AP2 (Applicant): orzeczenie Komisji Ekspertów złożonej z wybitnych rosyjskich uczonych pod przewodnictwem prof. Topornina, członka rzeczywistego Rosyjskiej Akademii Nauk
AP2 (Applicant): z dnia 2 sierpnia 1993 roku, opracowane w odpowiedzi na postanowienie Naczelnej Prokuratury Wojskowej Jabłokowa.
AP2 (Applicant): W postanowieniu ten pułkownik Jabłoków powołał imiennie ten zespół, sprecyzował zagadnienia, na które otrzymał również precyzyjne odpowiedzi.
AP2 (Applicant): Ten jawny i powszechnie upubliczniony dokument procesowy, mający szczególny walor dowodowy, nie tylko ukazał państwu rosyjskiemu i całemu światu wszystkie okoliczności zbrodni i kłamstwa katyńskiego, lecz także wnioskował o podjęcie przez organ prokuratorski Rosji konkretnych kroków procesowych.
AP2 (Applicant): Cytuję, z aresztowaniem i ukaraniem zbrodniarzy w Rosji, nie czekając na wniesienie sprawy do Trybunału w Hadze.
AP2 (Applicant): Nie pojmuję, co można było utajniać w tym stanie wiedzy na ten temat.
AP2 (Applicant): Przy tym nie sposób nie wspomnieć, że sama Federacja Rosyjska w art. 7 ustawy o tajemnicy państwowej wyklucza utajnianie jakichkolwiek informacji
AP2 (Applicant): o naruszeniach praw człowieka przez funkcjonariuszy państwowych.
AP2 (Applicant): O zakłamywaniu bezspornie ustalonych faktów świadczy także fragment świeżego, zupełnie świeżego, pisma pełnomocnika rządu rosyjskiego z dnia 30 listopada 2012 roku.
AP2 (Applicant): W punkcie 106 jego autor stwierdza, że w piśmie z 23 czerwca 2003 zawarte zostały błędne wnioski.
AP2 (Applicant): Tak to jest sformułowane. Chodzi w tym przypadku o pismo generała Kondratowa z tej daty, będące odpowiedzią na moją prośbę
AP2 (Applicant): przedstawioną osobiście ówczesnemu Naczelnemu Prokuraturowi Wojskowemu, panu generałowi Pawienkowowi, kiedy w dniu 18 czerwca złożyłem wizytę u niego w Moskwie.
AP2 (Applicant): Otóż pan generał Kondratow powiadamia mnie tym pismem na polecenie swojego zwierzchnika, że Naczelna Prokuratura Wojskowa Federacji Rosyjskiej w toku prowadzonego śledztwa ustaliła, cytuję dosłownie, Nawratil Antoni syn Juliana rocznik 1883 i Janowiec Andrzej syn Jana rocznik 1890 zostali rozstrzelani w 1940 roku przez organ NKWD. W czasie ekshumacji przeprowadzonych w 1991 roku wydobyto około 200 zwłok obywateli polskich.
AP2 (Applicant): Niektórych z nich na podstawie znalezionych osobistych rzeczy i pośmiertnych żetonów, tak jest w tekście, udało się zidentyfikować.
AP2 (Applicant): W ich liczbie zostały zidentyfikowane zwłoki wymienionych przez wnioskodawcę, czyli przeze mnie, polskich oficerów.
AP2 (Applicant): Nawratil i Janowiec zostali pochowani w rejonie Charkowa, a nadto ich nazwiska znajdują się w spisach starobielskiego obozu NKWD.
AP2 (Applicant): Pan generał Kondratow był wówczas szefem Zarządu Nadzoru nad przestrzeganiem prawa w Naczelnej Prokuraturze Rosyjskiej.
AP2 (Applicant): Dysponował najpełniejszą wiedzą o zbrodni katyńskiej i wynikach prowadzonego w tej sprawie śledztwa.
AP2 (Applicant): Wiedział zatem doskonale co i o czym pisze. Napisał więc rzetelną prawdę wbrew temu, co usiłuje dzisiaj ukryć pan pełnomocnym rządu rosyjskiego.
AP2 (Applicant): Odnowiły się więc elementy skompromitowanego już dawno kłamstwa katyńskiego w orzeczeniach moskiewskich sądów, a w ślad za nimi w memorandach pełnomocnika rządu federacji powielane są twierdzenia, iż brak jest dowodów, że polscy oficerowie zginęli z rąk funkcjonariuszy NKWD.
AP2 (Applicant): Oczywistą zbrodnię wojenną nazwano wydarzeniami katyńskimi o nieustalonym przebiegu i nieznanym losie ponad 20 tysięcy polskich jeńców wojennych.
AP2 (Applicant): To tak jakby ci oficerowie, proszę darować mi sarkazm, osadzeni w obozach NKWD o najsurowszym reżimie więziennym, udali się z im turystem na wycieczkę po Związku Radzieckim, odłączyli się od swoich klub, gdzieś się zajął i ruszili i ślad po nich zaginął.
AP2 (Applicant): Proszę o stwierdzenie wyrokiem Wysokiej Izby, że Federacja Rosyjska dopuściła się w naszej sprawie naruszenia artykułu 38 Konwencji.
AP2 (Applicant): Zresztą Wysoki Trybunał orzekł już bardzo trafnie w wyroku 5 Izby z 16 kwietnia ubiegłego roku, iż państwo rosyjskie naruszyło ten przepis Konwencji, co uniemożliwiło, tak jest w tekście, co uniemożliwiło Trybunałowi wszechstronną ocenę całości sprawy, w tym zwłaszcza przesłanek i podstaw prawnych umorzenia.
AP2 (Applicant): Ze swej strony dodaję, że w ten oto sposób państwo rosyjskie osiągnęło wyraźną korzyść ze wskazanego wyżej naruszenia przez siebie prawa.
AP2 (Applicant): Nastąpiło tu ewidentne złamanie starożymskiej zasady Nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem elegans, Przęga VII Kodeksu Justyniańskiego.