TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): The fact that the per diem indemnities were paid by the government deprives the claimant of the status of a victim.
GR1 (Government): Thus, the claim must be rejected.
GR1 (Government): In the report addressed to the House and in response to the additional question of the Court, the government has stated that the claimant did not comply with all the internal recourse laws which were at their disposal in terms of protection against discrimination.
GR1 (Government): In regard to the internal procedure, the claimants have filed a case concerning the debt before the municipal court, which has been rejected as unacceptable due to the prescription, since the delay prescribed by the law of three and five years had expired before the claimant was addressed to the court.
GR1 (Government): This decision was confirmed by the Court of the Second Instance.
GR1 (Government): The courts did not examine this claim and it was deemed unacceptable.
GR1 (Government): In regard to constitutional protection, the constitutional recourse of the claimant corresponds well to Article 6 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): In addition to the decision of the Constitutional Court, the courts have contested the constitutional rights of the claimant to equal protection in virtue of Article 36, paragraph 1 of the Constitution and have determined that it was a matter of fair satisfaction.
GR1 (Government): However, the question of discrimination was not considered in this decision because it was not even discussed in the recourse of the claimant.
GR1 (Government): The principle of juranovic curia does not apply to the procedure before the Constitutional Court because in virtue of Article 36, paragraph 1.7 of the Constitutional Court Law,
GR1 (Government): the Constitutional Court examines only the violations of constitutional rights alleged in the constitutional recourse.
GR1 (Government): Just as they have demanded the Commissioner's opinion on the protection of equality, the claimant could have filed a discrimination action in the context of civil proceedings and, in accordance with Article 43 of the Law against Discrimination, seek to overcome the consequences of discriminatory treatment, to demand compensation for the material and moral damage inflicted, etc.
GR1 (Government): The law provides for these possibilities.
GR1 (Government): An action concerning discrimination, apart from the claimant, could also be filed by the Commissioner or the Association of War Reservists.
GR1 (Government): In accordance with the law, this procedure is urgent and the appeal to the Supreme Court is always authorized.
GR1 (Government): However, no one has filed an action on this basis, although this possibility is always at their disposal.
GR1 (Government): They have said that the claimants have not used all the internal recourse laws to the research protection of discrimination.
GR1 (Government): The claimants have made their observations in the Grand Chamber, in paragraph 25, in the absence of arguments corroborated by the evidence on the non-payment of claims of lost indemnity, that the courts have served their corrupt dependent and political leaders of the moment.
GR1 (Government): This position is contradictory.
GR1 (Government): Governments certainly do not corrupt the courts.
GR1 (Government): In order to support the allegations concerning the compatibility of the material and moral damage inflicted with the Convention, governments must remind that the following arguments suggest that the payment to the courts was not considered as lost indemnity.
GR1 (Government): First, the position of the Ministry of Defence regarding the internal procedure.
GR1 (Government): The Ministry relied on the fact that these claims were obsolete.
GR1 (Government): Now, given the circumstances, all have valid proof of payment in the form of a pay bulletin for each claimant, eight or nine years after the payment was made.
GR1 (Government): This is not a task that it would be reasonable to expect from the Ministry of Defence in such a short time and for such a large number of claimants at the same time.
GR1 (Government): Second, the procedures before the National Court.
GR1 (Government): Governments have presented evidence in the form of a bulletin from the Court indicating that there was payment of lost indemnity, which indisputably demonstrates the payment of war indemnity, contrary to the claims of claimants that it had not been paid at all.
GR1 (Government): Finally, the two amounts do not correspond.
GR1 (Government): The amount paid to the reservists in the affected municipalities does not correspond to the amount of daily allocations planned for the reservists.
GR1 (Government): The first amount is a few times higher than the amount that followed.
GR1 (Government): Why would the government lose a higher amount than it should if we assume that it recognizes the debt and intends to repay it?
GR1 (Government): Why is this debt not paid by the Department of Defence?
GR1 (Government): Why is it a third party's obligation?
GR1 (Government): Some arguments show that the payment under the agreement could be considered as social allocation.
GR1 (Government): There is a law on social assistance for the allocation of a single aid in the extreme case of a threat to the standard of living for a large number of citizens.
GR1 (Government): This represents the type of social assistance for a group when each individual is not obliged to pay a proof of indigence.
GR1 (Government): Governments, in cooperation with the municipalities, can decide, according to their financial capacity, to establish other rights within the framework of social protection.
GR1 (Government): This is the case in the event of a natural disaster in a particular region, or in regions that face problems arising from multi-ethnic and poverty-stricken areas.
GR1 (Government): On the one hand, the municipalities that received this assistance are among the most underdeveloped, poor and specific in the sense of their geographical location and current geopolitical events.
GR1 (Government): On the other hand, there is a specific situation that applies to the consequences of war on these territories, as well as security problems.
GR1 (Government): Not all parts of the state's territory are as important as they are in terms of security.
GR1 (Government): States have a margin of appreciation in order to define priorities in the field of security.
GR1 (Government): Governments have explained in detail why the claim of the Requiem does not correspond to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
GR1 (Government): By observing the court's jurisprudence, we find a case with certain similarities where the court has faced the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
GR1 (Government): This is the case of the LAS against Croatia.
GR1 (Government): This is the case of a claim for compensation for the work of a military soldier.
GR1 (Government): Between our case and the mentioned cases, we can make a clear distinction between the two cases.
GR1 (Government): The payment of compensation and the recognition of the debt.
GR1 (Government): In certain circumstances, it is understood that Serbia could not be held more responsible at an international level, and the request is therefore also irrevocable in terms of the matter.
GR1 (Government): Honourable Judges, With regard to the merits of the case, the ultimate question in this case relates to Protocol 12 and general prohibition of discrimination.
GR1 (Government): The Respondent will try to complement its previous statements that even if the facts of the case fall inside the scope of the Convention provisions, there is still no discrimination because there are no grounds for such a claim and there is an objective justification for measures taken by the Government towards the reservists in the underdeveloped municipalities that pursue a legitimate aim.
GR1 (Government): There are very clear reasons leading the Government to a conclusion of the 2008 Agreement.
GR1 (Government): As it was explained in detail in paragraph 68 of the written observation.
GR1 (Government): Also, the reservists are not professional soldiers.
GR1 (Government): They just spend some time performing military service and their rights could only derive from that fact.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the basis for unjustified distinction may only be sought in connection with the exercise of their rights in relation to military engagement.
GR1 (Government): If the war per diems had been paid, there is no basis for claims of discrimination.
GR1 (Government): The arguments of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality upheld in the Chamber's judgment that the payments under the Agreement were clear war per diems because of requirement waiver of claims for unpaid per diems and the protesters were not required to submit any evidence in favour of their financial status, are contrary to the evidence presented.
GR1 (Government): Namely, the Agreement was a kind of settlement of disputes between the strike committees and the Government.
GR1 (Government): Waiving of claims was part of the deal, not because the Government acknowledged the debt, but to avoid further proceedings due to double payments.
GR1 (Government): And the financial ad was aimed to improve economic position of citizens in certain municipalities, not as an individual social right to each indigent person.
GR1 (Government): On the other hand, the Convention and the protocols thereto place no restriction on the contracting state's freedom to decide whether or not to have in place any form of social security scheme, or to choose the type or amount of benefits to provide under any such scheme.
GR1 (Government): In cases concerning a complaint on discrimination in conjunction with property right that has been denied, the relevant test is whether they would have had a right enforceable under domestic law to receive the benefit in question.
GR1 (Government): That is the principle established in the case Stek, in the Grand Chamber judgment E.B. versus France,
GR1 (Government): and Carson and others versus the United Kingdom.
GR1 (Government): However, in the present case, there is no enforceable right denied to the applicants.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, the understanding of Protocol 12 implies that any case of discrimination must still relate to the enjoyment of any right set forth by law in order to be justiciable.
GR1 (Government): In the opinion of the respondent, the right under the agreement is not a right set forth by law.
GR1 (Government): It is an agreement between the Government and the strike committees in order to provide aid to certain municipalities.
GR1 (Government): The agreement did not create an enforceable right for the applicants.
GR1 (Government): As stated in explanatory report on Protocol 12, paragraph 16, the fact that there are certain groups or categories of person who are disadvantaged, or the existence of de facto inequalities, may constitute justification for adopting measures providing for specific disadvantages in order to promote equality, provided that the proportionality principle is respected.
GR1 (Government): This means that the protocol does certainly leave the member state with sufficient leeway to adopt measures of positive action or preferential treatment.
GR1 (Government): In regards of place of residence as a ground for alleged discrimination, the Court has examined under Article 14 various cases with the distinction drawn.
GR1 (Government): The respondent repeats that only the case of McGee versus the United Kingdom treats the issue of regional differences as personal characteristics.
GR1 (Government): As the Court held in paragraph 50 of this judgment, such a difference does not amount to discriminatory treatment within the meaning of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): Following the same logic in the present case, the applicants' claims for discrimination on the basis of residence in different municipalities is manifestly ill-founded.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, no property rights of the applicants have been violated in the sense of non-payment of per diems, for they stay on the front line in 1999, and they have not been placed in an equal situation based on agreement, because their position were not similar and it is groundless.
GR1 (Government): They identify themselves with those who had been granted aid according to the agreement.
GR1 (Government): What we got here are not 30 reservists who had lodged this application.
GR1 (Government): We are talking, as also deemed by the Court in its judgment of 2 August 2012, in paragraph 96, about the right of all those entitled reservists in Serbia who had not received per diems.
GR1 (Government): It is undisputable that they all have the right to sort their rights before the courts or to negotiate with the government better position for themselves and to request better living conditions, but the claims about non-equal payment of per diems are manifestly ill-founded for all the above-mentioned reasons.
GR1 (Government): Lastly, the government would like to reiterate that it deeply regrets for the conflict with its citizens who participated in the 1919 war and will do everything in its power to improve the situation of these people and provide adequate solutions.
GR1 (Government): Nevertheless, it does not want to accept the responsibility for violations of human rights of a large number of its citizens in the case that is not clearly based on the facts as they are presented in the judgment of the Court from last August.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the Respondent proposed to Honourable Grand Chamber to render a new judgment in accordance with the submitted evidences and findings in this hearing and to hold the Republic of Serbia not responsible for human rights violations in this case.
GR1 (Government): Honourable Judges, thank you for your attention and we remain to the Honourable Court for any further clarification and questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would now like to invite the judges of the Grand Chamber to put any questions they may have to the parties.
Mark Villiger (Judge): I would wish to put a question to both parties.
Mark Villiger (Judge): It concerns the per diem allowance.
Mark Villiger (Judge): I would like to know more about the nature and the purpose of the per diem allowances paid to soldiers, reservists, in the Serb army.
Mark Villiger (Judge): Are the per diem allowances of a salarial nature, or are they intended more as a compensation?
Mark Villiger (Judge): And if so, a compensation for what?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Judge Hirvelä, please.
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): As a clarifying question, I put the question to the both parties.
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): What is actually the legal basis for the requested per diem?
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): Is it the rules on travel and other expenses in the Yugoslav army and decision adopted by the chief of staff of the Yugoslav army?
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): Or is it the agreement which was concluded in 11th January 2008?
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): So that's my question.
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): And if the answer is that they are both, so which was the legal basis for the agreement?
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): Were these two rules?
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): As a clarification, thank you.
Ineta Ziemele (Judge): To follow up on Judge Hirvelä's questions, we heard also now in the submissions, especially of the government, if the applicants could try systematically to answer to the following questions.
Ineta Ziemele (Judge): First, are you maintaining that the per diems in 1999 were not paid to you?
Ineta Ziemele (Judge): Why, if they were not paid at that time, why did you choose to go to the first instance court only in 2008?
Ineta Ziemele (Judge): Thirdly, are you saying that 2008 agreement recognized that debt in payment of the per diems, or are you saying that this is a new or additional financial aid to which you should also be entitled to?
Ineta Ziemele (Judge): And a sort of a small question, do you actually agree that the municipalities that are part of the agreement are of a particular need in financial aid, are indeed those that are particularly poor in Serbia?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Judge Popović.
Dragoljub Popović (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President.
Dragoljub Popović (Judge): First, I have a question to the applicants.
Dragoljub Popović (Judge): Could the applicants specify the number of days spent in the army during the critical period, that is for each and every one of them?
Dragoljub Popović (Judge): And I have a question to the government and another one which occurred to me during the oral hearing.
Dragoljub Popović (Judge): The first question is, could the government provide evidence on the exact dates and amounts of the transfers from the state budget to the municipalities enumerated in the agreement of January 2008?
Dragoljub Popović (Judge): And the second question is, and I'm provoked by the intervention of the government agent because he put forward the idea of providing adequate solutions from the government to the reservists.
Dragoljub Popović (Judge): May I kindly ask the government agent to specify what way and manner would they be satisfied and what sort of solution is envisaged by the government?
Dragoljub Popović (Judge): Thank you.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Moi, également, j'ai une question à poser aux deux parties.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Nous avons dans le dossier 3 arrêts de la Cour constitutionnelle.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Nous avons notamment l'arrêt qui a été rendu par la Cour constitutionnelle après l'arrêt de Chambre, c'est-à-dire l'arrêt de la Cour constitutionnelle du 5 décembre 2012.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Dans cet arrêt, la Cour constitutionnelle rappelle que les requérants ont invoqué l'article 36 de la Constitution, n'est-ce pas?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Dans un arrêt qui a été rendu antérieurement à cet arrêt de décembre 2012, à savoir en date du 17 février 2011, la Cour constitutionnelle se prononce sur l'article 21 de la Constitution en rappelant que cette disposition de l'article 21 n'est pas autonome et qu'elle doit être combinée avec une autre disposition de la Constitution.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): En ouvrant la Constitution, on constate que, indépendamment des dispositions concernant le principe de non-discrimination, je pense aux articles 32, 36 et 21 de la Constitution, d'autres dispositions consacrent des droits analogues à ceux protégés par la Convention et par le protocole.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Et je me réfère notamment à l'article 58 de la Constitution, le droit de propriété, ou l'article 69 de la Constitution, le droit à la protection sociale.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ma question est très simple.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Est-ce que les requérants ont invoqué, dans la présente affaire, l'article 21 de la Constitution?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Et je voudrais que les deux parties se prononcent sur la portée de l'arrêt de la Cour constitutionnelle qui a été rendue après l'arrêt de Chambre, et notamment dans le contexte de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So there are no other questions from my colleagues.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would like to inform you that the Court will now rise for 20 minutes, following which the parties will return for a second round of short pleadings to respond to the submissions in the first round and to the judges' questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The hearing is now resumed. I call Mr. Aleksić or Mrs. Isailović.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Maître vous avez la parole.
AP1 (Applicant): Oui, merci, M. le Président.
AP1 (Applicant): On va essayer de vraiment rapidement aller en besoin, mais tout d'abord, je souhaiterais apporter quelques réponses, répliques plutôt, à ce qui a été dit aujourd'hui devant vous par le gouvernement, qui nous parlait ici, encore une fois, des abus, des schémas d'abus, donc, toutes sortes de complots contre le gouvernement et ses fonds, mais il faut rappeler, encore une fois, qu'on ne peut pas reprocher quand même aux requérants, qui sont des simples citoyens, de ne pas mieux organiser les paiements sur place par un Etat qui a décidé, donc, d'aller en guerre contre l'OTAN.
AP1 (Applicant): Ils étaient simples soldats, simples, disons, des gens qui ont quitté leur domicile pour aller combattre contre l'OTAN pour son pays, pour leur pays, et donc, on ne peut pas les reprocher aujourd'hui de ne pas mieux organiser le paiement des indemnisations.
AP1 (Applicant): Encore devant vous et dans votre dossier, on nous a versé une pièce 21, donc, il devrait, selon les dires du gouvernement, représenter une preuve sérieuse sur les motifs des protestations.
AP1 (Applicant): Donc, on nous offre ici une interview d'on ne sait pas qui, de la presse, et on nous offre une traduction rapide de quelques phrases choisies par le gouvernement.
AP1 (Applicant): Je pense que tout ça, vraiment, n'est pas sérieux vu le problème qui est devant vous aujourd'hui.
AP1 (Applicant): Et encore, donc, mais cela va...
AP1 (Applicant): Ca se reproche à une question qui a été posée concernant, donc, les jugements de la Cour constitutionnelle.
AP1 (Applicant): Et encore, donc, nous, on maintient, donc, l'exception qui concerne, donc, les listes de paiement versées au débat par le gouvernement très tardivement, parce que ce n'était pas versé devant la Première chambre, on peut se demander pourquoi.
AP1 (Applicant): Et mon confrère, devant vous, est largement, je pense, expliqué quels peuvent être les motifs, parce que nous, on n'en sait rien.
AP1 (Applicant): Donc, on représente les requérants, les simples citoyens, et c'est l'Etat qui, dans ce cas, a toutes les listes, a toutes les preuves, et nous verse, petit à petit, donc, devant la Première chambre, des preuves complètement d'une autre nature.
AP1 (Applicant): Après, il nous verse les listes de paiement, donc, et attend qu'on leur croie sur parole que vraiment, c'était ces listes, donc, et nos clients contestent les signatures, contestent les montants.
AP1 (Applicant): Ils ne contestent pas qu'ils n'étaient pas du tout payés mais les listes du gouvernement étaient préparées et nous, on les soutient pour vous et pour les verser aussi tardivement dans les débats.
AP1 (Applicant): Et maintenant, donc, je vais commencer, tout d'abord, toute seule, et peut-être que j'aurai besoin de quelques éclaircissements de la part de mon confrère, qui était avocat des requérants devant les juridictions internes, parce qu'il y a quand même des questions qui touchent un petit peu cette procédure interne.
AP1 (Applicant): Donc, la 1re question de M. le juge Marc Villiger,
AP1 (Applicant): qui concernait, donc, la nature, si je ne me trompe, donc, la nature de ce paiement, si c'est un salaire, vu qu'il combattait sur...
AP1 (Applicant): donc, en vertu de la loi sur la mobilisation, ou d'une compensation.
AP1 (Applicant): Donc, on ne peut pas aujourd'hui, parce qu'on a les textes dans le dossier qui prévoyaient, donc, le paiement, mais, logiquement, il ne peut s'agir que d'une compensation, vu que c'était les gens qui étaient levés, disons, pour la défense du pays contre l'intervention de l'OTAN, et donc, pris dans leur bureau, sur leurs champs, dans leurs usines qui marchaient à cette époque en Serbie.
AP1 (Applicant): Et, naturellement, donc, ils avaient droit à une compensation, comme dans tous les pays, si on fait quelque chose qui vous éloigne de vos sources de vie, de vos revenus.
AP1 (Applicant): Concernant... Je vais essayer vraiment
AP1 (Applicant): de reproduire les questions.
AP1 (Applicant): Donc, la 2e question était posée sur le fondement juridique des demandes devant les juridictions internes, et donc, par la suite.
AP1 (Applicant): Et c'était, donc, posé par le juge Agiel.
AP1 (Applicant): Justement, il y avait des deux, et on a essayé d'expliquer ça dans nos écritures.
AP1 (Applicant): Il y avait ce règlement qui prévoyait, donc, le paiement des compensations, mais, après, il y avait l'accord.
AP1 (Applicant): Et un des juges nous a posé la question qui se recoupe un petit peu avec celle-ci.
AP1 (Applicant): Pourquoi, donc, on les a assignées seulement en 2010?