TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
Luis López Guerra (Judge): So that is the reason for unlawfulness.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): I would like to ask if, independently from this lack of international recognition, whether the parties can somehow inform us whether the MRT courts, and particularly the Tiraspol People's Court, comply or do not comply with the requisites of any due process court.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): That is mostly the independence and impartiality.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): I mean, what is the information on the material conditions in this respect of this court.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): And the second question, which is more or less related, it has been raised, the issue of the irresponsibility of the Russian Federation, allegedly, as the territory of the MRT is under effective Russian control, in all aspects.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): So my question is, can we get some information whether the MRT judicial system follows or does not follow the general organizational lines of the Russian Federation judicial system, as could be deduced for the effective control of the Russian Federation.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Judge Villiger.
Mark Villiger (Judge): Thank you, President.
Mark Villiger (Judge): A question to the parties which follows actually the question of Judge López Guerra.
Mark Villiger (Judge): It concerns the independence of the courts of the Moldovan Transnistrian Republic, the MRT.
Mark Villiger (Judge): My question is, how is the independence of the courts in the MRT assured?
Mark Villiger (Judge): Thank you.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, no other questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So the court will now rise for 15 minutes, following which the parties will return for a second round of short pleadings to respond to the submissions in the first round and also to the judges' questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So the hearing is resumed. I call Mr. Apostol. Please be seated.
GR2 (Government): Thank you, Mr. President and honorable judges of the Grand Chamber.
GR2 (Government): First, I would reply briefly on the questions raised by judges.
GR2 (Government): Indeed, there are two questions, and one question relates in particular and follows the other question.
GR2 (Government): This is about the sole question of the entire hearings which we are having here, is whether the so-called tribunals in Transnistrian region can or not guarantee fair trials and whether they afford minimum guarantees of that fair trial.
GR2 (Government): My position of the government is clear that they cannot do this, and for this I would refer the attention of the Grand Chamber to our written submissions where we quoted, among other things, we quoted the last – the report of our last visit made by high UN official in the region who in details examined – have examined these so-called tribunals and so-called legislation.
GR2 (Government): And his main conclusions were that so-called tribunals do not comply with minimum fair trial standards.
GR2 (Government): They cannot be considered independent.
GR2 (Government): So the government endorsed these findings.
GR2 (Government): And I would add also other most important thing, that the most important guarantee of fair trial is the legality of a tribunal.
GR2 (Government): So only legality can guarantee independence.
GR2 (Government): And when de facto unrecognized regime establishes its own judicial system, it cannot be independent.
GR2 (Government): Why?
GR2 (Government): Because this system serves the purposes of that de facto unlawful regime, and it sustains this unlawful regime.
GR2 (Government): So the scope of such a judicial system is not a protection of human rights, but the interest of private persons within the de facto local administration.
GR2 (Government): So the present case actually reveals this very aspect.
GR2 (Government): So we cannot see them as independent, because they are outside the very simple principles of law.
GR2 (Government): So as to the last question, does the so-called tribunals or judicial system within the MRT follows the judicial system of Russian Federation, or at least repeats some minimum guarantees offered by Russian Federation?
GR2 (Government): Believe me, this question is very difficult to reply in 10 minutes.
GR2 (Government): I would say that, first of all, it is not.
GR2 (Government): Because first of all, the Russian judicial system is very, very complex.
GR2 (Government): I would say that the Russian judicial system is a federal judicial system.
GR2 (Government): There are a lot of norms and regulations.
GR2 (Government): It's very difficult.
GR2 (Government): We can compare only comparable things.
GR2 (Government): This is not comparable things.
GR2 (Government): That is why I would say that from this point of view, the so-called judicial system of MRT cannot follow that judicial system.
GR2 (Government): It claims an affiliation, but this is not judicial gathering of the same principles.
GR2 (Government): And second, the MRT judicial system claims, and this is important, that MRT judicial system claims its own individuality.
GR2 (Government): And it comprises a kind of old Soviet regulations, which these Soviet regulations in itself are against the convention principles and the proposals of the convention.
GR2 (Government): So I would say that we cannot say that the judicial system is the so-called judicial system in the Transnistrian region is at least comparable with any system in existence in the special edict of the convention.
GR2 (Government): So this is briefly replies to the question, and I would say that I would use this opportunity also to reply to the applicants' submissions and to the Russian government's pleadings.
GR2 (Government): Very briefly, the Russian government continues to say that it has no responsibility because it has no jurisdiction.
GR2 (Government): But on the other hand, as from the pleadings of my colleague, representative of Russian Federation, we say it is clear that the Russian Federation continues to support, there is a continuous military presence.
GR2 (Government): So my view, and the present court view, was that the continued presence, military presence, the continued support rises a presumption of jurisdiction and the responsibility.
GR2 (Government): So this is up to the Russian government to prove otherwise that they do not bear responsibility.
GR2 (Government): Unfortunately, from the pleadings, I haven't seen any rebuttal of this presumption.
GR2 (Government): Otherwise, I was convinced, actually, in fact, that the jurisdiction of Russian Federation and the overall control of the region still exists.
GR2 (Government): And briefly on the applicant's suggestion, in particular, that the so-called remedies provided, I emphasize here, provided by the Moldovan government by means of judicial recognizing official judicial recognizing by the Supreme Court, by our Supreme Court, that the so-called tribunals are unlawful and cannot deliver judgments and annulling those judgments.
GR2 (Government): And thereafter, our government suggested that this, our Supreme Court, can be as a means for, at least, compensation.
GR2 (Government): This is very difficult, believe me, for the Republic of Moldova to support, to respond for the actions of other persons, private persons.
GR2 (Government): So this was a suggestion.
GR2 (Government): This was a suggestion that I would say that our Supreme Court provided at least partial just satisfaction.
GR2 (Government): And given that the Republic of Moldova has its positive obligation to do whatever possible to redress the applicants, these suggestions, this system, and these conclusions provided by the Supreme, our Supreme Court, this is an expression of our positive obligations.
GR2 (Government): So the whole idea of this case, that somebody should do something, and the Republic of Moldova, the government of Republic of Moldova is not silent, and it does something.
GR2 (Government): Indeed, in lack of effective control, and this was findings of the present court in the Ilashko case, in lack of effective control, we cannot guarantee as much as possible.
GR2 (Government): What we should do, our government should do what is possible for them, and we are doing this.
GR2 (Government): So this is the reply to the applicant complaints, and I think I would guarantee that our government will continue, indeed, this is our positive obligation, to continue all efforts to sustain the applicants in their redress, and to at least as it possible to guarantee respect of human rights in that region.
GR2 (Government): Thank you for your attention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Mr. Matyushkin.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, as regard the questions of Judge Villiger
GR1 (Government): and Judge Guerra, the Russian government once again emphasized that the lack of effective control over Transnistria and their judicial bodies act independently from Russian Federation.
GR1 (Government): I would also like to bring the Court's attention to today's submission of my respectable vis-a-vis Mr. Apostol, in which he told that the judgment of MIT
GR1 (Government): Court against the applicant was quashed by Moldova Court.
GR1 (Government): It seems to me that this fact speaks of a certain degree of control over MIT courts by Moldova.
GR1 (Government): And I should shortly refer to their submission of Mr. Postika and stress that, by my opinion,
GR1 (Government): the Court hearing is not the place for political speculations.
GR1 (Government): During the whole history of Transnistrian conflict, no one before Mr. Postika had accused Russia
GR1 (Government): of the presence of unaccounted military servicemen on the territory of Transnistria, including the Moldovan government.
GR1 (Government): And now we see some invention in this issue.
GR1 (Government): And secondly, I consider absolutely improper to draw any parallel between the situation in the eastern Ukraine and in present case in Transnistria.
GR1 (Government): First of all, because now some cases concerning internal Ukrainian conflict, Ukrainian crisis, are pending before the Court.
GR1 (Government): And secondly, because from the factual point of view, I could bring the attention to the interview, which was made by Ukrainian TV by chief of general staff of Ukrainian army.
GR1 (Government): It was three days ago.
GR1 (Government): In this interview, this chief commander of Ukrainian army recognized that no Russian troops in eastern Ukraine.
GR1 (Government): And finally, it is undisputable that international courts and tribunals are key actors in international law.
GR1 (Government): However, it is our strong belief that no court of law, including international one, is entitled to take on the role it was never officially delegated.
GR1 (Government): At present, it is more necessary than ever before that all international judicial bodies adhere to the mainstream public international law, as it has been shaped by the jurisprudence of the overwhelming majority of international courts and tribunals, in order to avoid any further contribution to the fragmentation of international law.
GR1 (Government): In this connection, I once again urge the Court to take this opportunity and to freshly examine, in the light of the mainstream public international law, the sensitive issue in question, so as to contribute to the peaceful cooperation of the member states, and not to increase the controversies between them, but to find a balanced approach which will correspond to the objective picture of their international relations.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Who wants to take the floor?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ms. Hriplivii or? Mr Postica, please.
AP1 (Applicant): With regard to the first and the third questions, we should note that in our observation of 31 of October, from paragraph 27 until paragraph 45, we presented the analysis regarding the functioning of the so-called course in MRT.
AP1 (Applicant): The manner of the naming of the judges, and we can conclude that these cannot be considered independent because the judges totally depend on the so-called president of the region, who can at any time name, dismiss, or transfer so-called judges.
AP1 (Applicant): There is no independent body that would regulate the activity of the judges in the region.
AP1 (Applicant): Regarding the impartiality of the judges in this particular case, we underline the fact that the applicant was accused by one of the most influential company called Sharif, which is the larger contributor to the local budget.
AP1 (Applicant): And we consider that this fact led to a prolonged detention of extortion of money from the applicant's family.
AP1 (Applicant): Regarding the second question, I should mention that starting with 2 August 2006, the region started the so-called process of harmonization of its so-called legislation from the region to that of the Russian Federation.
AP1 (Applicant): We presented the proofs of that.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, on 26 June 2007, based on this decree, was adopted the concept of harmonization of the local norms with the law of the Russian Federation.
AP1 (Applicant): This harmonization, in fact, involves the prerogative of the committee to examine and compare any act adopted by so-called legislative and executive bodies of the region to those of the Russian legislation.
AP1 (Applicant): The Russian Federation failed to contest this harmonization process.
AP1 (Applicant): Instead, it supported it through signing several commitments with the separatist leaders.
AP1 (Applicant): The most recent are those of July 2014 in the area of administration, education, law enforcement, and other.
AP1 (Applicant): All these proofs and evidence were presented to our submission.
AP1 (Applicant): I want to give reply to some statements made by Moldovan government and the Russian Federation government.
AP1 (Applicant): Referring to the legal practice created by the Supreme Court of Justice on declaring the nulity of the so-called sentence of the unrecognized authority by the Supreme Court of Justice of Republic of Moldova, this practice is clear and logical.
AP1 (Applicant): However, this practice cannot be considered under any form as an effective remedy for the protection of the rights of the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): This decision, in fact, oblige the Moldovan government to undertake other measures, as well including to sanction those who committed illegal acts.
AP1 (Applicant): On the other hand, the government has to establish if the person, in fact, committed some illegal acts in order to ensure an equitable balance for the potential victims.
AP1 (Applicant): Regarding to the Russian Federation replies about the so-called green soldiers, I should mention that I mean the so-called Transnistrian Army, who is more numerous than the Constitutional Army.
AP1 (Applicant): And which is more equipped than the Constitutional Army.
AP1 (Applicant): And I should say that about 50% of the population of the Transnistrian region has the citizenship of the Russian Federation.
AP1 (Applicant): So many of the Russian citizens are soldiers of so-called Army of Transnistrian region.
AP1 (Applicant): That is our point of view.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ms. Hriplivii, do you want to add something?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): No?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Then we have now come to the end of the hearing, and I thank the parties for their interventions and answers to the court's questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The court will now deliberate on the admissibility and merits, and the judgment will be delivered later.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je déclare ouverte l'audience publique sur la recevabilité et le fonds des affaires Vallianatos et Mylonas contre Grèce et CS et autres contre Grèce.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Les affaires ont été introduites respectivement devant la Cour les 6 et 25 mai 2009 en vertu de l'article 34 de la Convention par deux ressortissants grecs Mr Grigoris Vallianatos et Nikolaos Mylonas pour la première requête et par six autres requérants ayant demandé l'anonymat ainsi que par l'association Sintesi pour la seconde.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Les requêtes ont été communiquées au gouvernement le 3 février 2011.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le 6 mai 2011, la présidente de la première section a autorisé le centre R, la Commission internationale de juristes, la Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l'homme et la branche européenne de la International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association à soumettre des observations écrites conjointes en tant que tierce partie en vertu de l'article 44, paragraphe 3 du règlement.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le 11 septembre 2012, une chambre constituée au sein de la première section s'est dessaisie au profit de la grande chambre.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Dans ces affaires, aucune des parties ne s'y étant opposées.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le gouvernement défendeur est représenté par son agente, Madame Aikaterini Grigoriou, conseillère assistée par Monsieur Dimitrios Kalogiros et Madame Myrto Germani, conseiller.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Les requérants dans la première affaire sont représentés par Maître Caroline Mécary, conseil, et Monsieur Panayote Dimitras, représentant du Greek Helsinki Monitor, conseiller.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Les requérants dans la seconde affaire sont représentés par Maître Nicolaos Alivizatos et Evangelos Mallios, conseil.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ayant consulté l'agente du gouvernement et les représentants des requérants, j'ai fixé ainsi l'ordre de parole.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Nous entendrons successivement Madame Germani pour le gouvernement et Maître Alivizatos et Mécary pour les requérants.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): La parole est à Madame Germani.
GR1 (Government): Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les Juges, Dans les affaires qui nous préoccupent aujourd'hui, les requérants ne se plaignent pas d'avoir été empêchés de nouer ni d'entretenir une relation avec le partenaire de leur choix.
GR1 (Government): Ils n'allèguent pas non plus qu'ils en courent de poursuites pénales en raison du fait qu'ils entretiennent une relation homosexuelle.
GR1 (Government): Ils invoquent une restriction de leur liberté contractuelle du fait qu'ils ne peuvent pas conclure un pacte de vie commune que le droit grec réserve aux partenaires hétérosexuels, ce qu'ils perçoivent comme une atteinte à leur vie privée et familiale et comme une discrimination liée à leur orientation sexuelle.
GR1 (Government): Mais les requérants ne précisent nulle part quelle serait la valeur ajoutée que la conclusion de ce contrat pourrait apporter à leur vie et en quoi consiste le bénéfice dont jouissent les partenaires hétérosexuels paxés et dont ils s'estiment privés.
GR1 (Government): En ce qui concerne la recevabilité et le bien-fonder des présentes requêtes, tout ce que nous avons mentionné dans nos observations écrites reste bien évidemment valable.
GR1 (Government): Nous ne disposons pas d'informations concernant la nature des liens qui unissent les requérants.
GR1 (Government): Ainsi, nous ne sommes pas en mesure de repousser de manière motivée leurs allégations sur les faits.
GR1 (Government): Nous remarquons cependant que les pièces qu'ils fournissent, et que certains n'en fournissent pas, ne sont pas en même de prouver l'existence d'une relation intime et stable.
GR1 (Government): Sur le plan juridique, si nous sommes en désaccord avec les requérants, ce que nous croyons qu'un texte législatif qui fait partie du droit civil, tel que la loi grecque sur le pacte, constitue le fruit d'une réflexion visant à servir à répondre à des besoins sociaux concrets et impérieux auxquels le droit en vigueur n'apporte pas ou n'apporte plus de solutions efficaces.
GR1 (Government): Il convient donc de considérer la loi grecque sur le pacte comme un élément d'une mosaïque de dispositions qui régissent les rapports entre particuliers et forment le droit civil, ayant toutes la même valeur, la même place dans la hiérarchie des normes juridiques et qui d'ailleurs ne porte pas de jugement de valeur sur la moralité des individus.
GR1 (Government): Nous sommes d'avis que si l'on attribue au pacte grec la place qui lui revient dans le droit civil grec, on s'apercevra aisément que le fait, que l'impossibilité de requérant de conclure un pacte de vie commune n'a rien à voir avec leur orientation sexuelle et n'est finalement d'aucune conséquence pratique sur leur vie.
GR1 (Government): La clé pour comprendre la loi grecque sur le pacte et le besoin social auquel cette loi répond est le but poursuivi par le logislateur grec.
GR1 (Government): Commençons donc par les origines du pacte grec et par ce qui les distingue nettement de divers partenariats européens.
GR1 (Government): Le logislateur grec comprend de deux parts la réalité biologique et une constatation d'ordre social.
GR1 (Government): La réalité biologique est que de rapports sexuels entre personnes de sexe différent peuvent naître un enfant.
GR1 (Government): La réalité sociale est que l'institution du mariage, qui jusqu'à aujourd'hui permettait d'identifier les parents d'un enfant ou du moins d'établir une présomption de paternité, est en crise.
GR1 (Government): Le logislateur constate que cela conduit à une augmentation du nombre d'enfants qui naissent hors mariage et que pour cette raison, la question de l'affiliation reste souvent pendante pour une longue période.
GR1 (Government): La raison en est qu'un nombre croissant de couples évitent de se marier parce qu'ils sont réticents à conclure une union qu'ils perçoivent comme une restriction de leur liberté.
GR1 (Government): Mais la nécessité d'établir l'affiliation des enfants issus de ces rapports reste impérieuse, tout comme celle de savoir dans quel foyer ces enfants grandiront et de quelle manière leurs deux parents pourront exercer à égalité leur autorité parentale, même s'ils ne sont pas mariés.
GR1 (Government): Le logislateur propose donc aux partenaires hétérosexuels une solution de compromis.
GR1 (Government): Il consacre dans un texte législatif l'autonomie de leur volonté pour qu'il soit bien clair que la disposition du mariage relative aux rapports personnels et pécuniaires entre époux ne s'applique pas aux contractants d'un pacte et leur permet d'enregistrer leur relation de manière que le lien de filiation puisse être établi à travers une présomption de paternité.
GR1 (Government): Voilà quel est le raisonnement qui sous-tend la création de ce contrat spécifique auquel le législateur grec donne le nom de pacte de vie commune qui fait débat aujourd'hui.
GR1 (Government): C'est ainsi que la réglementation du pacte grec comporte une présomption de paternité suivant laquelle l'enfant nait pendant la durée du pacte ou dans les 300 jours qui suivent sa résiliation est présumé être de l'homme avec qui la mère est axée.
GR1 (Government): Il y a là une originalité du pacte grec.
GR1 (Government): Aucun autre partenariat ne contient de présomption de paternité même quand il s'agit de partenaires de sexe différent.
GR1 (Government): De plus, la réglementation grecque prévoit que les deux parents, les deux partenaires décident en commun du nom de famille de leur enfant, que le père présumé exerce en commun avec la mère l'autorité parentale et qu'en cas de résiliation du pacte, la question de l'autorité parentale sera réglée suivant les dispositions du Code civil qui régissent la dévolution de l'autorité parentale en cas de divorce.
GR1 (Government): En dehors de la question de la filiation, il existe une deuxième différence capitale entre le pacte grec et les divers partenariats européens.
GR1 (Government): Dans les lois européennes sur les pactes et les partenariats, on rencontre de manière plus ou moins nuancée des dispositions qui témoignent qu'après la conclusion d'un pacte, les deux partenaires cessent d'être considérés comme des individus isolés et sont désormais soumis à un statut nouveau dans la mesure où ils sont considérés juridiquement comme un couple.