TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): So first of all it has to be mentioned that the right to broadcast in this case must be subjected to legal regulations and the government remind and recall including to the applicant that it had been sanctioned about 20 times for various reasons and each time the council decided to apply milder sanctions even if the very first time it could have been a public warning and the second could have been a pecuniary fine, the third could have been a suspension for 5, 3, 30 days and so on but and then the fifth one could have been the withdrawal of the license.
GR1 (Government): However the government want to stress that these 18 sanctions could have probably been just 5 or 6 before the withdrawal of the license but the government and the authorities decided to sanction the applicant company about 18 times before withdrawing that license for only that period of time.
GR1 (Government): The government want to stress that the applicant company could reapply for a license within 12 months after the withdrawal of the license.
GR1 (Government): In the government's opinion that period of time could have been used for the applicant or for any other company sanctioned with that to reset its policy and to rethink its strategies in order to comply with the regulations.
GR1 (Government): The government want to reiterate and to stress to highlight that the main goal of the authorities was not to withdraw anyone's license, broadcasting license.
GR1 (Government): They just wanted to apply sanctions gradually and formally just to reset and to determine any applicant including the other applicants to re-enter the legal specifics of the norm, just to re-enter legality.
GR1 (Government): So that is why the authority applied several milder sanctions as I said about 18 sanctions although it could have applied just 3 or 4 and then withdrawn the license immediately.
GR1 (Government): To answer Judge O'Leary's question about the 15 days, the 15 working days, that period of time was expressly provided by the legislation for the audiovisual council.
GR1 (Government): It is a period, it is a maximum period within which the council had to examine any wrongdoing or any action by a broadcaster and it basically was not for the applicants to be informed or to be granted time to respond.
GR1 (Government): Also the government submitted in their observations explicit information about the broadcasters that had been sanctioned during that period of time and we reiterate it was not just the applicant company, it was also the public broadcaster and other private broadcasters for various shortcomings, for various violations and I reiterate the main difference between the applicant and the other one sanctioned was that the other ones did comply with those sanctions and they did re-enter legality whereas the applicant just chose to disregard any of those sanctions and just continued the same editorial policy and the same lack of pluralism either internal or external.
GR1 (Government): So just to answer the question, it was not just the applicant, it was about many broadcasters and that information is in the government's submissions.
GR1 (Government): And about the question on the way the audiovisual council decides on when and how to unfold the monitoring, it could be done in different ways.
GR1 (Government): Basically it is as a result of notifications of individuals or legal persons but it is also made ex officio especially in the electoral periods of time, it means prior to the elections when they occur.
GR1 (Government): Concerning judges Barton and Pavley's questions about article 3810 and 388 of that law, the code, well, it was changed after the revocation, after the withdrawal of this license and we don't really see any connection with this case since it occurred later on but in any way the constitutional court mentioned about the fact that it didn't need to pronounce itself on the abstract proportionality of the sanction because it basically referred itself to the lack of procedural guarantees of that provision.
GR1 (Government): So in fact, the constitutional court did not examine the very merits of the case limiting itself to some procedural lack of procedural guarantees.
GR1 (Government): And referring to judges Pavley's question about the recommendation concerning the two thirds of the members of parliament for electing the members of the audiovisual council, the government would like to mention or to know that whenever we had the presidential republic, I mean when the president was elected by the parliament itself, it was very complicated to achieve two thirds of the members of parliament or the majority of two thirds in this case.
GR1 (Government): So therefore, it was basically renounced to apply the two thirds and it was opted for the simple majority of the members of parliament even simply because in the political reality of the republic of Moldova that might have been even impossible, not to say very complicated.
GR1 (Government): Concerning that same notification of the judgment of the constitutional court, it should be noted that the constitutional court was notified by a member of parliament and therefore, all the ethics of that constitutional court's judgment could not be applied for the past but only for the future in this case.
GR1 (Government): There was a question about the fact or about the possibility of the applicant companies to request the adjournment of the examination of the case or if they had enough time to prepare for the examination of their shortcoming by the audiovisual council.
GR1 (Government): It has been noted that under the Moldovan law, the applicant could request the adjournment or the extension of the time limit to present its position.
GR1 (Government): They could request the adjournment of the examination of its case and therefore, it could have had enough time to prepare its defense.
GR1 (Government): We have to note that there were not such requests in the present case of the present applicant and therefore, while they could have availed themselves of this right but they didn't.
GR1 (Government): I think that concludes my presentation. Thank you.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Now I turn to the representative of the applicant, Ms. Nica, you have the floor.
AP1 (Applicant): Thank you, distinguished members of the court, for questions.
AP1 (Applicant): I will start with the first question of Judge Shookin with regard to the evidence proving that the attitude for the applicant was politically biased.
AP1 (Applicant): In this regard, there is concrete evidence of key political figures of the state that, for example, on 4 December 2009, the president at the interim of the state in the plenum of the parliament stated openly, and it could be seen on the YouTube channel, on the YouTube, that that is a quotation.
AP1 (Applicant): If I order, the company NIT would not exist anymore.
AP1 (Applicant): Also, the prime minister of the state and the same president at the interim of the state, on 8 and 9 September 2010, both publicly accused and declared that the NIT company violated the legislation, manipulated public opinion, and refused to give replicates.
AP1 (Applicant): And they called to sanctioning on the channel.
AP1 (Applicant): Meanwhile, the same prime minister of the country, during meetings with press, refused to offer comments to the channel, saying that he is not going to give comments to a representative of the party, to a party structure, but only to the representatives of the media.
AP1 (Applicant): Also, the president of the Parliamentary Commission for Culture, Science, Education, and Mass Media, when debating in the parliament the report of the activity of the Audiovisual Coordinating Council for 2009, presented in 2010, declared that the Audiovisual Coordinating Council should have acted better and have more critical position for the NIT channel.
AP1 (Applicant): All these declarations of key political figures of the state as prime minister of the country, president at the interim of the country, proves that the attitude to the channel was not quite the same as the attitude to the other channels.
AP1 (Applicant): So we consider that these statements that can be verified, they are publicly available till now, most of them.
AP1 (Applicant): And also, they were noted in the request for interim measures submitted to the court initially in 2012, prove the specific character, specific politically biased character, to the channel itself.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the question of Judge O'Leary, followed up by Judge Lemans, with regard to the terms of the preparation of the meeting and the possibility of the applicant to submit its position, we consider that it was very quick.
AP1 (Applicant): There were only several days between all these events took place, and it was not possible clearly to present an accurate position.
AP1 (Applicant): What about the possibility to ask the adjournment?
AP1 (Applicant): Remembering the practice, and even from the documents submitted for the government, which refer to different meetings of the World of Visual Coordinating Channel, the possibility of adjournment was never discussed as such.
AP1 (Applicant): So we consider that even asking for adjournment, it would not change the situation to better.
AP1 (Applicant): And in this regard, I would like to point that a specific situation of the applicant can also be seen from the fact that on the 5th of April, the decision was adopted.
AP1 (Applicant): The same day, the applicant, according to the administrative law, lodged a request to the World of Visual Coordinating Council to annul that decision.
AP1 (Applicant): And it was examined only on the 29th of April, practically 20 days later.
AP1 (Applicant): While the 6th of April, the applicant also lodged a request to the court asking for adoption of the interim measure but near suspension of the decision.
AP1 (Applicant): So these terms, when deciding on the applicant's request to annul the decision, were differently from the possibility offered to the applicant to present its position.
AP1 (Applicant): And also remembering that during the meeting, the applicant company was represented practically by one single person on the page of the monitoring report.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the question put by Judge Pavly with regard to the constitutional court decision, according to national law and according to the law on the constitutional court, it is indeed the constitutional court's decision.
AP1 (Applicant): The constitutional court decision are benefits of the authority res judicata from now to law.
AP1 (Applicant): So they are not applied retroactively.
AP1 (Applicant): However, it is a continuous situation.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant's case is still under examination on its merits in the courts.
AP1 (Applicant): From the constitutional point of view, from the point of view of the constitutional law, and also the European Convention on Human Rights, according to national legislation, has a primary character over all other legal norms and acts.
AP1 (Applicant): We consider that the national courts should take into account the constitutional court opinion and should not limit themselves only to the consideration of examining the case from the perspective of the administrative law, a very narrow and specific provision.
AP1 (Applicant): Because the consequences of the decision adopted by the individual coordinating council was infringing their fundamental rights and one of the basic rights as the right to the freedom of expression.
AP1 (Applicant): From this perspective, we consider that the constitutional court's decision in this case formulating that conclusion was obligatory to be taken into account by the courts.
AP1 (Applicant): The situation is even more specific because at that time in 2012, the adoption even later after the examination of the merits of the case or the constitutional court decision with reference to the case was not prescribed as a ground for a vision.
AP1 (Applicant): The ground for a vision or the taking into account the constitutional court decisions in a very specific conditions were introduced in the civil proceedings called later.
AP1 (Applicant): So at that time, practically that conclusion of the constitutional court that indeed referred to a request submitted by a deputy of the parliament on the interpretation of the specific norm of immediate enforcement of the decisions of the individual coordinating council.
AP1 (Applicant): Though the constitutional court said that it was not ensuring the basic guarantees under the convention, it had never been taken into account by the courts.
AP1 (Applicant): So it is a paradoxical legal situation because the violation of the right not to have suspended immediately the broadcasting license is recognized.
AP1 (Applicant): The case under the merits is still in the first instance court.
AP1 (Applicant): And however, this conclusion on the constitutional form of the state is neglected.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the question of Judge Turkovic about the monitoring, as far as the applicant concerns and say, the monitoring was decided by the audiovisual coordinating council on its own and with the monitoring report.
AP1 (Applicant): So this specific activity took completely to the mandate of the audiovisual coordinating council.
AP1 (Applicant): They could have regular monitoring, ad hoc monitoring.
AP1 (Applicant): From the perspective of practice, the monitoring of the applicant, he used bulletins and generally contents.
AP1 (Applicant): It was a specific and more attentive, let's say, monitoring during the electoral campaign.
AP1 (Applicant): During the electoral campaign of referendum 2010.
AP1 (Applicant): During 2012, then, the discussion of the possibilities of the election of the president and some specific legal provisions in this regard happened in the Moldovan parliament.
AP1 (Applicant): Specific discussions with regard to the compliance of the terms of election of the president were discussed.
AP1 (Applicant): So in this period, there was more specific, more attentive from our point of view, monitoring of the programs.
AP1 (Applicant): Also, I would like to supplement with the question with the object of the area, if I'm not mistaken, with regard to sanctioning of other broadcasters.
AP1 (Applicant): Indeed, some broadcasters were also sanctioned.
AP1 (Applicant): But even according to the minutes of meetings submitted by the government, firstly, they're practically in the whole part, the discussions of the members of the council referred to the NIT channel.
AP1 (Applicant): The discussions and debates on the content of other broadcaster were rather short.
AP1 (Applicant): And also, the sanctions applied were not so drastic as in regard to the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): I think that is all that I could say on the questions formulated.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Do any judges want to follow up on their questions?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I see...Judge Turković
Ksenija Turković (Judge): Do we know in this concrete case who ordered the monitoring and on which basis with which explanation this five days monitoring that was taking place before we got this decision that we are having in front of us?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Mr. Rotari, could you comment on the question
Robert Spano (JudgeP): by Vice President Turković, please?
GR1 (Government): Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to Judge Turković.
GR1 (Government): That was mainly an ex officio decision.
GR1 (Government): It was not just targeted to the applicant.
GR1 (Government): It was also done involving other companies.
GR1 (Government): And it was not just against the, it was not the monitoring of the applicant company only.
GR1 (Government): So it was an ex officio decision of the Auto Visual Council.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Ms. Nica, do you want to add anything to that answer?
AP1 (Applicant): President, thank you, and Turković.
AP1 (Applicant): From our point of view, the monitoring was organized indeed at the decision of the audiovisual coordinating council by their own position in this regard.
AP1 (Applicant): However, their attention was distinctly connected, especially to the bulletins that were presented by the applicant company.
AP1 (Applicant): In comparison with the bulletins of the other broadcasters.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): That concludes our session this morning.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I thank the applicant and the government for their submissions and the answers to the court's questions.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The court will now deliberate on the admissibility and merits.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The judgment will be delivered later and the parties will be informed of the date of delivery.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I therefore declare the hearing closed.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Béláné Nagy versus Hungary.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on 12 August 2013 on the Article 34 of the Convention by a Hungarian national, Mrs. Béláné Nagy.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the second section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, paragraph one of the rules of the court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was communicated to the government on 21 January 2014.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 10 February 2015, a chamber of the second section delivered its judgment in the case.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): It held that there had been a violation of Article One Protocol Number One to the Convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 24 April 2015, 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 the request on 1st June 2015.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 4 September 2015, the European Trade Union Confederation was granted leave under Article 36, paragraph two of the Convention and Rule 44, paragraph three of the rules of the court to make written submission to the court as third party.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Mr. Zoltán Tallódi,
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): agent of the government,
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): assisted by Mrs. Marianna Lévai, advisor.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. András Cech, counsel, assisted by Mr. Erik Látrányi and Mr. Balázs Várhalmy, advisors.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I welcome the representatives in the name of the court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Having consulted the agent of the government and the representative of the applicant, we have determined the order of addresses as follows.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Mr. Cech for the applicant will speak first
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): and then Mr. Tallódi for the government.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): May I call Mr. Cech, please, you have the floor.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, members of the court,
AP1 (Applicant): if you were to go back in time 40 years to Nyiregyháza, Hungary, you would meet a young girl, Katalin, full of ambition who has just started to work at the labor court as a clerk.
AP1 (Applicant): You would hear the old typewriter clicking under her fingers, which are black from the carbon paper.
AP1 (Applicant): You would smell the coffee she's making for her boss.
AP1 (Applicant): She's so talented that the president of the court employed her even before she passed her final exams at the vocational school.
AP1 (Applicant): She's just embarking on her adult life, starting to work, and thus becoming a contributor to the social security scheme.
AP1 (Applicant): A few years later, this young woman, the applicant, moves to another place and gets a new job at the local forestry company, again as a clerk.
AP1 (Applicant): Her life is a struggle, but she's happy.
AP1 (Applicant): She loves her job.
AP1 (Applicant): She's her boss's right hand, and she gives birth to three children.
AP1 (Applicant): But years later, things take a turn for the worse.
AP1 (Applicant): In the mid-'90s, her leg starts swelling, and she has to see the doctor regularly.
AP1 (Applicant): And when it rains, it pours.
AP1 (Applicant): A few years later, the forestry company is wound up, and she loses her job.
AP1 (Applicant): She does her best to find another job, but to no avail, because at that time, this is almost impossible in the underdeveloped eastern regions of the country.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, she's facing more and more serious health problems and undergoing numerous surgical interventions.
AP1 (Applicant): She becomes less able to work, and the state of her health gets so poor that in 2001, she's finally assessed to have suffered a loss of her capacity to work and is granted disability pension.
AP1 (Applicant): For more than a decade, she has been suffering from agonizing gout, which even hinders her housekeeping.
AP1 (Applicant): She would be sitting here with us were she able to endure the pain caused by traveling.
AP1 (Applicant): Still, in spite of everything, the government is still trying to sell you the idea that the applicant's health status improved in 2009 to such an extent that she was no longer eligible for the disability pension.
AP1 (Applicant): But this is clearly not the case.
AP1 (Applicant): They argue in paragraph 21 in their memorandum that an expert opinion and domestic court decisions assert the improvement in my client's health.
AP1 (Applicant): But this statement is far from the truth.
AP1 (Applicant): The government has never submitted or relied on expert report or court judgment other than those already adjudicated by the chamber, which are at your disposal.
AP1 (Applicant): However, we observe that none of these documents encompass directly or even indirectly a single word which would support the alleged improvement.
AP1 (Applicant): On the contrary, in the course of the first domestic lawsuit in 2011, the forensic medical expert clearly stipulated that no substantial improvement had indeed occurred in the applicant's state of health since 2007, when the last medical checkup maintaining the applicant's disability had taken place.
AP1 (Applicant): The government's assertion is therefore simply not true.
AP1 (Applicant): Former Vice President of the United States Hubert H.
AP1 (Applicant): Humphrey said that, quote, the moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children, those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly, and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick, the needy, and the disabled, end quote.
AP1 (Applicant): In the present case, the Hungarian government is treating the disabled applicant by trying to confuse the blatant facts.
AP1 (Applicant): Nonetheless, this only emerged after the delivery of the chamber judgment.
AP1 (Applicant): Namely, the court, when communicating the application to the government, established in the statement of facts that the change in the applicant's level of disability in 2009 was due to a modification of the applicable methodology and not to any change in her health.
AP1 (Applicant): In their subsequent observations, the government did not opine this fact, as is clear from Appendix 1 to their memorandum.
AP1 (Applicant): Consequently, whatever the respondent government may say, the facts and evidence prove that regarding my client's health, there is neither any improper assertion nor any false assumption in the chamber's judgment.
AP1 (Applicant): This is a crucial issue, since the hard core of the present case is the fact that the applicant's state of health has not improved.
AP1 (Applicant): Notwithstanding the attitude of the government towards disabled persons, and especially towards the applicant, the court must embark on the issue of the possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol Number 1.
AP1 (Applicant): The government and the applicant dispute whether the applicant has had a possession.
AP1 (Applicant): We do assert that she has.
AP1 (Applicant): According to this court's case law, possessions may be either existing possessions or valuable assets.
AP1 (Applicant): The latter comprises pecuniary assets, such as debts, by virtue of which the applicant can claim to have at least a legitimate expectation of obtaining effective enjoyment of a particular pecuniary asset.