TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR2 (Government): Et le politique a estimé que c'était à elle d'estimer si la situation d'une personne internée avait assez évolué pour que cette personne puisse à nouveau réintégrer de manière immédiate la société.
GR2 (Government): L'autre solution aurait été de conserver l'ancienne loi, de ne jamais hausser ce minimum.
GR2 (Government): Alors, il n'aurait jamais été question de proportionnalité des anciennes décisions, puisque celle-ci, leur proportionnalité n'a jamais été contestée devant votre court.
GR2 (Government): Ensuite, pour répondre à la question du juge Bojcikš, qui aussi, d'un autre côté, je vais aussi répondre à la question du juge Pavly, en même temps, si on prend la loi réparatrice de 2017, on voit que dans son exposé des motifs, la loi dit, je vais lire, si vous me permettez, que malgré les limitations introduites, il est encore possible d'aboutir à une situation où une mesure d'une durée indéterminée qui constitue un internement est ordonnée pour des faits relativement légers.
GR2 (Government): Le présent projet entend de cette manière aller plus loin que le législateur en 2007 et en 2014, en se concentrant sur les faits plus sérieux, à savoir les crimes correctionnalisables, les crimes non correctionnalisables et les délits.
GR2 (Government): Pour les deux dernières catégories d'infraction, les faits doivent constituer une atteinte ou une menace à l'intégrité physique ou psychique.
GR2 (Government): Il va de soi qu'une atteinte ou une menace à l'intégrité sexuelle en font également partie.
GR2 (Government): L'ajout de la notion de menace est requis pour permettre un internement pour certains faits qui démontrent une dangerosité dans le chef de l'auteur, sans qu'il ait effectivement porté atteinte à l'intégrité physique ou psychique entière.
GR2 (Government): Il peut s'agir de faits qui, par hasard, n'ont fait aucune victime, comme un incendie volontaire, un attentat à la bombe, un jet d'acide, etc.
GR2 (Government): Ce qui est fondamental, c'est que l'exposé du motif dit bien que leur appréciation par le juge est une question de fait.
GR2 (Government): Donc, dans le cas des deux requérants, ce qui importe, c'est que dans les deux dernières décisions, en mai 2020 pour M. Denis, en juin 2019 pour M. Irvine, il y a eu, sur la base de rapports d'excel,
GR2 (Government): les chambres de protection sociale ont estimé que dans les deux cas, il y avait un risque de commettre de nouvelles infractions.
GR2 (Government): Dans le cas de M. Denis, cela nécessitait un strict encadrement.
GR2 (Government): Dans le cas de M. Irvine, on parlait de risque de récidive violente,
GR2 (Government): qu'une réinsertion immédiate dans la société représentait un risque élevé de récidive violente.
GR2 (Government): Donc, l'important n'est pas tellement que ces personnes, que les deux requérants, n'ont jamais commis de faits qui, à priori, n'ont jamais commis de faits qui, aujourd'hui, répondraient au seuil minimal, mais en réalité, on voit bien que même l'idée de menace, qu'il n'y a pas besoin d'avoir commis ce fait, que la menace suffit, qu'il n'y a pas besoin qu'il y ait une victime, c'est ce qui est écrit dans l'exploit délématique de la loi réparatrice.
GR2 (Government): Et ça, c'est quand même le point fondamental, que sur base de rapports d'experts, des juges indépendants, aux prises avec les réalités du terrain, ont décidé qu'il y avait un risque de commettre de nouvelles infractions, et qu'il y avait un risque pour les tiers.
GR2 (Government): Si, maintenant, on se concentre sur la question du juge Turkovitch, sur la question qu'en réalité, les requérants ne demanderaient pas leur libération, mais une admission forcée, une mesure civile, le gouvernement constate que les requérants ne sont pas clairs.
GR2 (Government): Devant les juridictions belges, ce qui a été soulevé, et devant la quatrième section, ce qui a été soulevé, c'est que l'internement n'a plus de base légale parce que la loi a changé, donc la libération définitive doit être ordonnée.
GR2 (Government): Ici, devant la grande chambre, on nous parle maintenant d'admission forcée.
GR2 (Government): Dans tous les cas, ça n'a pas une importance, qu'on choisisse l'un ou l'autre, ça n'a pas une importance fondamentale, parce que les requérants contestent soit que leur internement n'est pas légal, soit qu'il n'est pas approprié, mais ce qu'on a, ce sont des rapports psychosociaux, des établissements qui les prennent en charge, qui établissent clairement qu'il y a des troubles mentaux qui ne permettent pas une réintégration dans la société.
GR2 (Government): La situation des requérants sera réévaluée à l'avenir, et nous espérons qu'ils puissent un jour réintégrer la société, mais malheureusement, ce n'est pas le cas actuellement, et c'est le point fondamental de ces deux cas.
GR2 (Government): Merci pour votre attention.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Est-ce qu'il y a des demandes des juges qui avaient posé des questions qui souhaitent une clarification?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Non, je ne vois pas.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Alors, nous en arrivons au terme de l'audience.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Je remercie les comparants qui ont assisté la Cour pour leur intervention et leur réponse à ces questions.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): La Cour va maintenant délibérer sur le fond.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): L'arrêt sera rendu ultérieurement.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Les partis seront informés de la date de prononcée.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): L'audience est levée.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of ND and NT versus Spain.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on 12 February 2015 under Article 34 of the Convention by a Malian National, Mr. ND, and the National of the Ivory Coast, Mr. NT.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the third section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of the Court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): It was communicated to the government on 7 July 2015.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 3 October 2017, a chamber of the third section delivered its judgment in the case.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): It unanimously declared the application admissible and held that there had been a violation of Articles 4 or Protocol Number 4 and 13 of the Convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 14 December 2017, the government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): And the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request on 29 January 2018.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe has exercised a right under Article 36, Paragraph 3 of the Convention to intervene in the proceedings before the Grand Chamber and submitted written observations.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Leave to intervene was also granted under Article 36, Paragraph 2 of the Convention and Rule 44, Paragraph 3 of the Rules of Court to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Spanish Commission for Assistance to Refugees, and acting collectively, the AIR Centre, Amnesty International, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, the International Commission of Jurists, and the Dutch Council for Refugees.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The governments of Belgium, France, and Italy also submitted observations as third parties before the Grand Chamber, having been granted leave to that effect pursuant to rule to Article 36, Paragraph 2 of the Convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): At this hearing, the respondent government are represented by their agents, Mr. Rafael Andrés Leon Cavero, Mr. Francisco de Asís Sanz Gandasegui, and Mr. Alfonso Brezmes Martínez De Villarreal, and by Manuel Montobbio, permanent representative of Spain with the Council of Europe.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): They are assisted by Mr. Francisco Coria  Rico, Mr. Jesús Rueda Jimenez, Mr. Juan  Valterra De Simón, and Mr. Luis Tarín Martín, advisors.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The applicants are represented by Mr.Carsten Gericke and Mr. Gonzalo Boye, counsel.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): They are assisted by Mr. Wolfgang Kaleck, Mrs. Hanaa Hakiki, Mrs. Rocío Moreno, and Mrs. Isabel Elbal, advisors.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Mrs. Dunja Mijatovic, will also participate in this hearing, pursuant to her right under Article 36, Paragraph 3 of the Convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): She is assisted by Mrs. Francoise Kempf and Mrs. Anne Weber, advisors.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): In addition, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was granted leave to participate in this hearing under Article 36, Paragraph 2 of the Convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): She is represented by Mrs. Grainne O’hara, director of the Division of International Protection, assisted by Mrs. Marta García and Mr. Randhir Wanigasekara, advisors.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I also welcome a delegation of the European Judicial Training Network and a delegation of Latvian judges who are on a study visit to the court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Having consulted the agents of the government, the representatives of the applicants, and the representatives of the third parties, I have determined the order of addresses as follows.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Mr. Gericke and Mr. Boye for the applicants will speak first, and then Mr.  Leon Cavero for the government, and finally Mrs. Mijatović and Mrs. O’hara, third parties.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting into Montenegrin has been authorized for the benefit of a group of law students from Montenegro attending this hearing.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I call Mr. Gericke.
AP1 (Applicant): let me take you back to the 13th of August, 2014.
AP1 (Applicant): It is very early in the morning and still dark.
AP1 (Applicant): A group of men climb over a border fence into the Melilla border structure.
AP1 (Applicant): Some of them reach the top of the last fence, the one facing inwards towards the city.
AP1 (Applicant): Amongst them are the two applicants, Mr. N.D. and Mr. N.T.
AP1 (Applicant): At their feet, they see a Spanish road on the one side.
AP1 (Applicant): On the other side, they see their friends being beaten up by Moroccan officers despite their peacefulness.
AP1 (Applicant): N.D. spent nine months living in Morocco in fear of those blows,
AP1 (Applicant): N.T. even longer, over a year.
AP1 (Applicant): So they stay on the fence.
AP1 (Applicant): Later on that day, N.D. and N.T.
AP1 (Applicant): are still on the inward fence.
AP1 (Applicant): The Guardia Civil are waiting for them.
AP1 (Applicant): On the other side of the fences, Moroccan officers are also waiting for them.
AP1 (Applicant): No one else is allowed near the scene.
AP1 (Applicant): There are no legal advisors or interpreters present.
AP1 (Applicant): N.D. and N.T. speak no Spanish and no English,
AP1 (Applicant): so no communication is possible with the Guardia Civil or other Spanish authorities.
AP1 (Applicant): At around 2 p.m., N.T. climbs down a ladder
AP1 (Applicant): and he sets foot onto the Spanish road.
AP1 (Applicant): He's immediately grabbed by Spanish officers and handcuffed.
AP1 (Applicant): He's walked through the border structure and handed over to Moroccan officers.
AP1 (Applicant): An hour later, the same happens to N.D.
AP1 (Applicant): Despite the authorities' efforts to stop journalists from documenting the event, by the afternoon, the newspaper El Diario reports that about 60 migrants have already been returned in a summary manner without complying with the Spanish law on foreigners, whilst 15 persons are still on the inward fence and four had been transferred to a hospital.
AP1 (Applicant): These summary expulsions or hot returns have been practiced by Spain for over a decade, with the authorities obstructing independent reporting on these operations.
AP1 (Applicant): Journalists are detected and chased away.
AP1 (Applicant): However, on the 13th of August, 2014, images were obtained, in particular of the summary expulsions executed in daylight, including that of N.T.
AP1 (Applicant): This rare footage was submitted as evidence when these two applications were filed.
AP1 (Applicant): Spain was left with no choice but to admit the summary group of expulsion of that day.
AP1 (Applicant): Spain also admits that this was done as a matter of policy under its operational border protocol.
AP1 (Applicant): This is why, factually, this case is rather simple.
AP1 (Applicant): Yet, in its exceedingly wrong written observations, Spain constantly attempts to blur the issues by making many false claims and by submitting misleading documents.
AP1 (Applicant): We will not be able to address all of these claims and documents today.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, we ask the court to assume that, unless expressly admitted by us, both the claims made by Spain and the evidence submitted are disputed by the applicants.
AP1 (Applicant): One of Spain's claims needs to be addressed straight away.
AP1 (Applicant): Throughout these proceedings, Spain constantly referred to violence and to a violent attack on the fence.
AP1 (Applicant): Yet, no direct allegation of violence was ever made against N.T. and D. or their companions.
AP1 (Applicant): And not a shred of evidence was presented on that point.
AP1 (Applicant): To the contrary, the evidence from both sides shows that, on that day, the fence climbers were not violent, but subjected to brutal anti-grading treatment.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, Spain's claim is nothing but a miserable attempt to taint the applicants' reputation.
AP1 (Applicant): Spain also tries to dilute the legal issues of this case.
AP1 (Applicant): This case is not about the applicants' asylum claims.
AP1 (Applicant): It is also not about assessing whether the expulsion procedure meets the individual examination standard of Article IV, Fourth Protocol, as this court did in Clarifia.
AP1 (Applicant): Indeed, in the present case, the applicants were not registered or identified before they were expelled.
AP1 (Applicant): They were not spoken to.
AP1 (Applicant): They were not even counted.
AP1 (Applicant): They were simply handcuffed and walked back to Morocco, as Spain admits, without any possible procedure or exception.
AP1 (Applicant): So the legal question in this case is only whether, under the Convention and its protocols, a state should be allowed to summarily expel individuals from its territory without giving them the slightest possibility to raise any arguments against their expulsion.
AP1 (Applicant): Spain claims that it should be allowed to do so.
AP1 (Applicant): It argues that the very concept of territorial jurisdiction, a concept key to the effective application of the Convention, should be put aside.
AP1 (Applicant): This will be my first point of address this morning.
AP1 (Applicant): I will then turn to the particular factual and legal issues of this case.
AP1 (Applicant): My colleague, Mr. Boyer, will then
AP1 (Applicant): answer the court's questions on the applicant's access to asylum at the Rabat Embassy, the Nardois Consulate, and the Beni Ensa border post at the material time.
AP1 (Applicant): As to jurisdiction, the first question that we need to ask is the following.
AP1 (Applicant): Is the Melilla border fence structure located on Spanish territory?
AP1 (Applicant): The answer is that paragraph 107 of Spain's observations.
AP1 (Applicant): And I quote, as contemplated in the Wadras Treaty, the fence had to be built within the Spanish-owned territory, end of quote.
AP1 (Applicant): So Spain admits that territorial jurisdiction could apply.
AP1 (Applicant): What it now argues is that it should not apply because, and again I quote, Spain has restricted its full jurisdiction.
AP1 (Applicant): This is paragraph 108.
AP1 (Applicant): As conformed in the court's case law, the convention applies to the whole of the contracting party's territory.
AP1 (Applicant): Limited exceptions exist, but these are strictly defined, namely when another actor has absolute and effective control of part of a territory and the state party tried but failed to ensure the application of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): In other words, in situations of occupation.
AP1 (Applicant): Aside from that particular case, the case law precludes territorial exclusions, including by explicit reservation.
AP1 (Applicant): It simply does not allow for parts of the territory to be excluded from the scrutiny of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): In the words of the grand chamber in Asanidze versus Georgia, any such exceptions to territorial jurisdiction would, quote, render the notion of effective human rights protection underpinning the entire convention meaningless, end of quote.
AP1 (Applicant): In light of this clear jurisprudence, Spain's claim that it has restricted its jurisdiction within the Melilla border fence structure does not stand.
AP1 (Applicant): In fact, even if one wanted to avoid territorial considerations, as the chamber did in its judgment, it is also clear that Spain had effective and absolute control of both the border fence structure and the applicants.
AP1 (Applicant): Indeed, Spain initiated, paid for, and carried out the construction of the structure in 2005.
AP1 (Applicant): Since then, it exclusively controls access to it and pays for its maintenance.
AP1 (Applicant): Only Spanish officers open and close the gates.
AP1 (Applicant): They decide who and when to expel, not for a reduced and short period of time, as the French government claimed in its intervention, but since the very construction of the structure in 2005 and up until now.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, we see absolutely no grounds on which an exception to jurisdiction could be made.
AP1 (Applicant): The border fence structure is and always has been on Spanish territory and under the exclusive and effective control of Spain.
AP1 (Applicant): Turning now to the facts of the case, Spain's main argument is that not enough evidence was submitted by the applicants of their expulsion on the 13th of August, 2014.
AP1 (Applicant): And I will now answer this claim.
AP1 (Applicant): To establish which facts the parties disagree on, we must first let the dust created by Spain settle.
AP1 (Applicant): In Spain's submissions, in particular paragraph 16 and 17, we see that Spain agrees that at least 70 individuals were at some point physically on Spanish soil.
AP1 (Applicant): Secondly, in these paragraphs, Spain further agrees that these individuals were returned to Morocco automatically with no procedure.
AP1 (Applicant): Third, Spain admits in its so-called expert report that two days after the events, NT gave a video interview about this expulsion where he holds a picture of his particular expulsion in his hands.
AP1 (Applicant): These three crucial points all confirm the applicants' accounts.
AP1 (Applicant): However, Spain claims that more conclusive evidence should have been submitted.
AP1 (Applicant): And as the chamber pointed out, it would be grossly unfair for Spain to defend this case on that basis.
AP1 (Applicant): Indeed, the inexistence of records of the expulsions is the very subject of this case and part of Spain's failures under the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): Similarly, as we know, the inexistence of high-quality close-up pictures of the events is another consequence of Spain's conduct.
AP1 (Applicant): Spain cannot now use these arguments to escape this court's scrutiny.
AP1 (Applicant): As the chamber ruled, Spain is stopped from doing so, especially since the evidence in this case is not only sufficient.
AP1 (Applicant): It is exceptional and even includes video footage of the events on which the applicants identified themselves.
AP1 (Applicant): Now, Spain claims it is impossible to identify the applicants on that footage and submitted a so-called expert report on that point.
AP1 (Applicant): We note that this report was compiled by the Ministry of Interior in order to defend this case.
AP1 (Applicant): The officers writing the report compared identity photos of the applicants with snapshots of random individuals on the border fence, not close-ups of the applicants.
AP1 (Applicant): We raised this in front of the chamber, who gave no weight to this report.
AP1 (Applicant): To our surprise, Spain submitted this report again for this hearing without addressing any of these substantial mistakes.
AP1 (Applicant): Instead, Spain made yet more errors.
AP1 (Applicant): In its submissions, it again circled the wrong man for both N.D. and N.T.
AP1 (Applicant): Spain also claimed that on the picture of the border fence on which N.D. identified himself,
AP1 (Applicant): he and others merrily appear as, and I quote, tiny, indistinguishable blots.
AP1 (Applicant): This is simply untrue if one looks at the relevant snapshots of the video we submitted.
AP1 (Applicant): I refer you to the second picture in our additional annex 1 as submitted for this hearing.
AP1 (Applicant): This is only one example of the gross distortions used by Spain to insert doubt as to the truthfulness of the applicants' accounts.
AP1 (Applicant): But on a closer look, none of it stands.
AP1 (Applicant): This is why the chamber, in its judgment, did not merrily ignore Spain's arguments as to the applicants' credibility, as Spain claims.
AP1 (Applicant): It rejected these arguments as ill-founded.
AP1 (Applicant): And it rightly ruled that the applicants have offered reliable and conclusive evidence of being amongst the 70 individuals automatically returned from Spanish soil to Morocco on the 13th of August.
AP1 (Applicant): I will now turn to the legal arguments in the case, namely, Article 4, Fourth Protocol, and Article 13.
AP1 (Applicant): Though border protection falls within state sovereignty, this sovereignty is qualified, notably by absolute prohibitions under the convention, that under Article 3, and that under Article 4, Fourth Protocol, which, in the wording of the convention, allows for no justified or proportionate limitations.
AP1 (Applicant): Indeed, the prohibition of collective expulsion provides for an essential guarantee, that's to have access to some procedure before being expelled.
AP1 (Applicant): As the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated in his intervention to the chamber, it is a fair trial and due process guarantee.
AP1 (Applicant): The UN Committee Against Torture goes further and identifies the prohibition as a precondition for the realization of non-refulmon.
AP1 (Applicant): But as the UN High Commissioner also highlights, these two principles are distinct.
AP1 (Applicant): As defined in CLAIFIA, the prohibition of collective expulsion provides for a genuine and effective possibility to raise arguments against an expulsion and to have those arguments examined in an appropriate manner by the authorities.
AP1 (Applicant): The first step of this test, the genuine and effective possibility to raise arguments against an expulsion, asks whether the authorities allowed for a claim to be expressed before they expel.
AP1 (Applicant): This question is purely procedural.
AP1 (Applicant): In the jurisprudence of the court, it requires at least identification.
AP1 (Applicant): As for the type of arguments which one could raise against an expulsion, the UN High Commissioner points out that these are not limited to asylum in relation to the country of origin, contrary what Spain suggests.
AP1 (Applicant): Other types of arguments exist, for example, for traffic victims, for unaccompanied minors, or for persons who fear ill treatment in the country of destination.
AP1 (Applicant): The procedural step is essential to establish the existence of a claim, any claim.
AP1 (Applicant): And only after this step is fulfilled can one distinguish between those who raise arguments and those who do not.
AP1 (Applicant): But first, the possibility to raise arguments must be given to all.
AP1 (Applicant): And for such a procedure to happen, all must be identified.
AP1 (Applicant): Only then can one distinguish between those who raise arguments and those who do not.