TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
TP1 (ThirdParty): However, the Court has never had the opportunity to examine a case concerning a person who died before the submission of an application in the absence of any heir or close relative and with no legal representative.
TP1 (ThirdParty): This raises a question of the representation of a direct victim by a third party.
TP1 (ThirdParty): A few comments on the principle of effectiveness and the need to adapt standing requirements.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The Convention is a lawmaking treaty, the object and purpose of which are the protection of individual human rights.
TP1 (ThirdParty): This requires that the Convention's provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective.
TP1 (ThirdParty): In my view, a strict application of standing requirements to persons with disabilities, and in particular intellectual disabilities, would have the unfortunate effect of depriving a particularly vulnerable group of any reasonable prospect of seeking and obtaining redress for violations of their human rights set forth in the Convention.
TP1 (ThirdParty): It would also run counter to the Convention's objective of preventing the occurrence or recurrence of human rights violations by the State's parties.
TP1 (ThirdParty): With a view to safeguarding the Convention's effectiveness at national level, I think that in exceptional circumstances, which the Court may wish to define, NGOs should be able to lodge applications with the Court on behalf of victims.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Possible factors to be taken into account are listed in the written observations submitted by my predecessor.
TP1 (ThirdParty): I should like to stress that the case at hand possibly combines all of these factors.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Moreover, in its recent judgment of Nenshev and others v. Bulgaria, already mentioned by the applicant,
TP1 (ThirdParty): the Court recognized that the interest of justice and the necessity to effectively protect individual rights and freedoms might require exceptional measures to ensure the representation of victims who are not in a position to defend themselves.
TP1 (ThirdParty): In this context, there should be at least an attempt to raise the issue at domestic level by the NGO wishing to lodge a complaint before the European Court on behalf of a victim.
TP1 (ThirdParty): In my view, this could be a factor that could guide you in today's discussions.
TP1 (ThirdParty): This would be in line with a tendency in domestic law to accept that a third person or organization takes legal action in the name of victims of alleged human rights violations in domestic courts, especially in cases concerning vulnerable groups of people.
TP1 (ThirdParty): There's a trend at the European level to expand legal standing, especially in anti-discrimination law.
TP1 (ThirdParty): For example, Article 7 of the EU's racial equality directive obliges EU member states to ensure in accordance with national law that associations, organizations, or other legal entities may engage in judicial or administrative proceedings on behalf of or in support of victims.
TP1 (ThirdParty): I think it's high time that we recognize the invaluable contribution made by NGOs to the effective protection of human rights at national level.
TP1 (ThirdParty): At European level, the Court's own case law on questions relating to the human rights of persons with disabilities has evolved considerably in recent years, thanks precisely to the intervention of NGOs.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Many of these cases only reached Strasbourg thanks to the legal support and advocacy provided by NGOs when the applicants had no one else to turn to.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Many of them had been stripped of their legal capacity by domestic courts in ways that violate the Convention and essentially had no access to justice in their home country.
TP1 (ThirdParty): NGOs can sometimes provide the support these persons need to have their voices heard, to seek justice, and to have their Convention rights respected.
TP1 (ThirdParty): People turn to the European Court of Human Rights because they feel unable to find justice at home.
TP1 (ThirdParty): However, access to justice for persons with intellectual and mental disabilities remains a central concern, particularly for those residing in large, remote, and impersonal psychiatric institutions.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Achieving equal rights for persons with disabilities will require removing the barriers that hinder them from accessing courts to claim their human rights and fighting against their isolation in institutions or in the back rooms of family homes.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Failure to ensure that vulnerable persons have effective access to justice will allow the abuses committed against them to continue with impunity.
TP1 (ThirdParty): In conclusion, in order to prevent and put an end to the abuses committed against people with disabilities, the important role played by NGOs in shedding light on the human rights violations experienced by vulnerable persons and facilitating their access to justice must be officially recognized.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Allowing NGOs to lodge applications with the court in exceptional circumstances on behalf of persons with disabilities, and in particular intellectual and psychosocial disabilities, is fully in line with the principle of effectiveness in which the Convention is grounded.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Thank you for your attention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Muižnieks.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I turn now to my colleagues.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Are there any questions?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Judge López Guerra first, please.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): Thank you. My question is first mostly to the government.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): Who was the legal representative, if any, of Mr. Câmpeanu?
Luis López Guerra (Judge): Or in other words, did Mr. Câmpeanu have any legal representative?
Luis López Guerra (Judge): And in that case, who was the representative? And the other question is for the applicant,
Luis López Guerra (Judge): concerning the events of the 20th February 2004, I mean the last day of the life of Mr. Câmpeanu.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): It seemed that, well, he was still alive. A team of monitors of the CLR visited the Poiana Mare Hospital.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): They saw directly Mr. Câmpeanu. They assessed his situation. And then they requested for him to be
Luis López Guerra (Judge): translated to another hospital. And the request was rejected. And it seems that this team made a report on the facts.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): Now, my question is possible at this time, so many years ago. First, did the centre have some previous knowledge
Luis López Guerra (Judge): of the situation of Mr. Câmpeanu? Or what was the reason for the visit to the hospital?
Luis López Guerra (Judge): Secondly, did the team then, after seeing Mr. Câmpeanu's situation, have a direct interview with the manager of the hospital?
Luis López Guerra (Judge): In this case, did they have a direct answer to their request? Or was it just that the manager did not take any decision?
Luis López Guerra (Judge): So, if possible, what were the terms of the relation of this team with the manager of the CLR, I mean of the hospital? Thank you.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you. Judge Silvis, please.
Johannes Silvis (Judge): Thank you, Mr President. I have a question to the Government. The representatives of the
Johannes Silvis (Judge): respondent state have referred to the mission of the Court under Article 34 of the Convention.
Johannes Silvis (Judge): They have underlined the meaning of the victim concept and its restrictions when it comes to admissibility. There is, however, another element in Article 34 to which I want to draw attention.
Johannes Silvis (Judge): Article 34 of the Convention on the Right of Individual Applications' last sentence reads, The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right. My question to the Government is related to that last sentence in particular, having in
Johannes Silvis (Judge): mind that there is little room between the act and the omission. The Government acknowledge
Johannes Silvis (Judge): the fact that Mr Câmpeanu was a particularly vulnerable person, that he was an orphan and that he had no legal guardian appointed when he turned 18. The Government note in their submissions
Johannes Silvis (Judge): that the CLR had the possibility to ask the domestic courts the lifting of Mr Câmpeanu's legal capacity and to ask for the nomination of a tutor pursuant to Articles 143 and 115 of the Code of Family. How could the Centre have done so before having even monitored his existence?
Johannes Silvis (Judge): Why should the State, on its own motion, not have taken the proper initiative to the appointment of a legal representative in order to secure that the vulnerable Mr Câmpeanu, who was confined and confronted with major decision-making concerning his health, would have had effective access to justice? In close connection to this, the matter can be raised whether a State that fails to
Johannes Silvis (Judge): provide proper representation to vulnerable persons in a situation like Mr Câmpeanu's thereby in any way hinders the effective exercise of the right to bring an application to our Court.
Johannes Silvis (Judge): Such hindrance may perhaps run against the obligation in Article 34, the last sentence.
Johannes Silvis (Judge): Does the Government hold a view on this matter? Thank you.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Trash Silvis, this is Mark Villiger, please.
Mark Villiger (Judge): My question follows those of judges López Guerra and Silvis and concern the applicant's representation.
Mark Villiger (Judge): Had the applicant so wanted during his lifetime, could he in fact and in effect have obtained representation to defend his interests before domestic authorities and this court?
Mark Villiger (Judge): For example, could he during his lifetime in fact and in effect have obtained representation to file the complaints which the Center for Legal Resources is today raising before us?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Judge Villiger, Judge Šikuta.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): I do have two questions, one to the government and one to the applicant.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): Both are focusing on procedural aspect of the case.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): First question to the government.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): We do have in our materials information that in its decision of 15th of June 2006 concerning a criminal complaint lodged by the same NGO, CLR, on behalf of another patient, PC, that had died at the same hospital, PM Hospital, the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the prosecutor's objection on the lack of standing of the same NGO.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): In its reasoning, the High Court held that the CLR did have local standing to pursue such proceedings deemed to elucidate the circumstances in which 17 patients had died at the same hospital in between January and February 2004.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): The question is, what is the difference between today's case and the case of PC where the High Court of Cassation and Justice recognized local standing?
Ján Šikuta (Judge): The second question is to the applicant.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): And it concerns the exhaustion of domestic remedies.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): In our case, in today's case, the prosecutor's office attached to the Calafa District Court appealed against the judgment.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): On 4th of April 2008, the Dole County Court allowed the appeal, annulled the judgment delivered by the Calafa District Court, and rejected the complaint lodged by CLR.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): Now, the court mainly relies on the conclusions of the forensic report and the autopsy report, as well as on the decision of the Doctors Association, and simply rejected it because there was no casual link between the medical treatment given by Mr. Câmpeanu and his death.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): My question is procedural.
Ján Šikuta (Judge): Why, in this case, CLR didn't go to the High Court of Cassation and Justice like CLR did in the case of PC?
Ján Šikuta (Judge): Thank you very much.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Judge Bianku.
Ledi Bianku (Judge): I have a question for the applicant's representatives.
Ledi Bianku (Judge): If I understand well from the case file, at the domestic level, you're recognized as legal representatives of Mr. Câmpeanu.
Ledi Bianku (Judge): And today, before us, you are claiming to be recognized as indirect victims on the case.
Ledi Bianku (Judge): Could you explain to me the change on your position, why you claim today to be recognized as indirect victims, especially bearing in mind the Nancella case that you mentioned as well?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you. Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, please.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President. The government did not address the merits of the case.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): Thus, the silence of the government should be read as an acknowledgment of the violations imputed regarding Articles 2, 3, 5, and 8, leaving aside, of course, the question of admissibility of complaint.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): This is a question addressed to the government, of course.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you. Are there any other questions? No.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So I propose that we suspend the hearing for 20 minutes to allow parties to prepare their response to the questions and their response to the arguments put before the court during the first round.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The hearing is now resumed and I call Ms. Brumar, please.
GR1 (Government): in responding to the questions put forward before the break, as the government indicated in the written submissions, Mr. Campano was not beneficiating
GR1 (Government): at the time of his death of the guardianship measure of protection.
GR1 (Government): This was this aspect, which undoubtedly is a shortcoming in the authorities conduct, is explainable by the short lapse of time between his discharge from the child protection institution and the moment of his death.
GR1 (Government): Still, in terms of law, as the law provided then, and as the law provides with more clarity at this at the present moment, Mr. Campano was to be evaluated
GR1 (Government): in terms of existence of judgment and a proposal for the institution of a guardian was to be forwarded to a judicial tribunal.
GR1 (Government): If the court was to decide that Mr. Campano lacked judgment,
GR1 (Government): it would have established a guardianship.
GR1 (Government): The question referring to the fact, to the possibility for the applicant to have obtained the representation of Mr. Campano,
GR1 (Government): I am sorry if I was not very clear in my oral submission.
GR1 (Government): I did not intend to put on the applicant the burden of requiring and obtaining the guardianship of Mr. Campano.
GR1 (Government): We were just mentioning the legal possibilities offered by the current civil code in the domestic law that provides for the establishment of guardianship by the guardianship court after a concrete evaluation of each case that comes to its attention through the action of authorities or at the request of a relative of a person that is allegedly lacking judgment.
GR1 (Government): As far as the right of individual recourse is concerned and the government's interpretation of Article 34, in our opinion, the last sentence of Article 34 that dealing with the effectiveness of the exercise of the right to individual petition by referring specifically to this right, I quote, this right, is confined to the framework that is established by the previous sentence and the previous sentence is dealing precisely with the two requirements for a possible petition before the court.
GR1 (Government): That is, that an entity addressing the court be placed in one of the three categories, individuals, non-governmental organizations or group of individuals, and claiming to be a victim.
GR1 (Government): So it is our understanding that when such a possible applicant claiming to be a victim, and we recognize, we acknowledge the fact that the victim can be not only a direct one, but an indirect or potential one, is addressing the court, its exercise must be effective.
GR1 (Government): But we consider that the last sentence is referring to the exercise of the individual rights to petition as described by the first sentence.
GR1 (Government): As far as the position of the domestic courts is concerned, and answering the question on the difference between the present case and the high court's evaluation, as we noted in our oral submission, the high court, in recognizing the right of the applicant to challenge a prosecutor's decision before it, considered that the applicant can be qualified as a person, not the injured person, but any other person, the interests of whom had been harmed.
GR1 (Government): It is a person that is different from the injured party, or the representative of the injured party, that has a more general interest, and in this context, we place our affirmation that the domestic court sort of recognized an actio popularis for the non-governmental organizations, a larger category of persons who, because of the aspects inferred in their statute, because of their concrete demarches, and because the goals they are pursuing, can be considered to be affected in their interests by a certain prosecutor's decision.
GR1 (Government): That's the position of the Romanian high court, and it is different from the interpretation we give to Article 34, as the Romanian high court does not ask the petitioner to be a victim, but more largely to show that some of his concrete specific interests had been harmed, and this concept of interest is interpreted in a more extensive way than the concept of victim in Article 34.
GR1 (Government): If the, and I acknowledge the if in the beginning of my affirmation, if the procedure for the appointment of a guardian was finalized before Mr. Campanile,
GR1 (Government): his guardianship, according to domestic legislation, had the duty and was to perform the functions in order to satisfy his interests and to protect his rights, and a guardian was entitled to bring before domestic authorities claims regarding alleged affecting measures on Mr. Campanile's rights.
GR1 (Government): Another question was referred to the government silence on the merits of the case.
GR1 (Government): It was the government's choice to plead in the oral submissions on the.
GR1 (Government): It was internal, not the DA, so not in my domicile,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): In this room, may I interrupt you for a short moment?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I just want to tell you that your time has almost expired and if you want to respond to all the questions, that you should be aware of that.
GR1 (Government): It was the government's choice to plead more extensively on the question of competence, locus sandi, and admissibility as we identified, together with the special circumstances invoked by the applicant, some of them already present in the court's case law, as deserving of our primary attention.
GR1 (Government): Still, I recall that our written submission, the initial ones before the chamber and the submissions presented before the grand chamber this year in June, reiterate our position on the merits of the case and show our authority's position that actions were taken and assessment was made by the government for the benefit of Mr. Kampan,
GR1 (Government): not without acknowledging that there were certain shortcomings in the application of the legislation.
GR1 (Government): I hope I have answered all the questions.
GR1 (Government): I thank you for your attention, Mr. President.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much. I call Mr. Cojocariu, please.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, honorable judges, I will first take the question regarding Valentin Câmpeanu's
AP1 (Applicant): the issue of whether he had access to proceedings, to guardianship proceedings, whether he could initiate guardianship proceedings of his own or whether he otherwise had access to justice.
AP1 (Applicant): Well Campano had no effective way to access justice, whether to initiate guardianship proceedings or whether to seek protection for the abuses he suffered from, for a number of reasons.
AP1 (Applicant): He was under the control of the social and medical authorities throughout his stay at the social, at the placement center before, while he, until he turned 18 and then at the psychiatric social care home and then at the Buenos Aires psychiatric hospital, a hospital of maximum security measures by the way.
AP1 (Applicant): So he was under the control of medical and social professionals, a fact which the government has accepted.
AP1 (Applicant): Also during the last two weeks of his life he was, he received lots of sedative medication to deal with his alleged agitated behavior.
AP1 (Applicant): So he could not, his capacity was already diminished due to his intellectual disability, but he also received sedatives to calm him down.
AP1 (Applicant): Also obviously, the most obvious reason, he received no support from the state in any way to exercise his legal capacity and be able to take decisions, to take the decision to go to court, assuming that he could do that.
AP1 (Applicant): The most relevant fact with respect to his agency, the most relevant fact of, during the last past two weeks of his life, has been that he hasn't been, the authorities have not involved him with respect to any decision that they took on his behalf.
AP1 (Applicant): So this big life-changing decisions that they took to transfer him between different institutions, to give him medication, to remove the measure of guardianship from him.
AP1 (Applicant): So this decision have never been communicated to him, and he was not involved at any stage in these decisions.
AP1 (Applicant): He was treated like an object.
AP1 (Applicant): So he had no agency whatsoever.
AP1 (Applicant): So he could not, to reply to the question, somehow he could not, he did not have the possibility to initiate guardianship proceedings, leaving aside the effectiveness of the guardianship system in Romania in general.
AP1 (Applicant): In fact, the government have not provided any examples of people asked by the court, the government have not provided any examples of similar situations where people in the same situation as Campiano could effectively have access to courts to complain about the regime of their detention or other human rights abuses that they suffered.
AP1 (Applicant): With respect to the question on the difference between our approach to the matter of victim status, we submit that the outcome, the outcome that we want to see is that and which is in compliance with the principle that rights is effective, rights under the Convention are effective in principle.
AP1 (Applicant): An outcome that is in compliance with the effectiveness principle is that the Court hears this case on the merits. We suggested that the best way in which we could
AP1 (Applicant): – in which the Court could achieve this is by extending the indirect victim status to include NGOs in the special circumstances of this case. But this issue is a novel
AP1 (Applicant): issue which has not been thoroughly clarified by the Court so far.
AP1 (Applicant): There are a number of ways in which the outcome that we mentioned, so hearing this case on the merits, can be achieved. For example, Campiano himself could be considered
AP1 (Applicant): an applicant in his own right, in which case the CLR could be – would be acting in the capacity of a representative on the basis of some implicit mandate resulting from all the considerations in this case. But, you know, whereas there are a number
AP1 (Applicant): of possibilities, to us it is not important, like really the precise modality in which the Court organizes or applies its admissibility criteria, to us the outcome is important, and the outcome is that the Court declares that the individual is admissible, and here is it on the merits. I will leave my colleague now.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, Honorable Court, one question it was about,
AP2 (Applicant): we did know Valentin Cumpanu before our visit to Panama Hospital.