TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): However, this is only until the host gains the knowledge of illegal contents.
AP1 (Applicant): After that, as the council and national law state, one has to remove the content immediately.
AP1 (Applicant): If this responsibility is not fulfilled, then the host will be responsible as a traditional publisher for the content of the comment.
AP1 (Applicant): The second question concerned the inquiry, why did the applicant ever put in place the safeguards?
AP1 (Applicant): What was the purpose, and why were the safeguards put in place?
AP1 (Applicant): The answer to this is quite simple.
AP1 (Applicant): Since Delphi's interest, contrary to the government assertion, is to have a civil public debate in its comments, not to have bad or offensive or illegal material floating around in its comment platform.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, it did put the safeguards in place to have a civil comment platform and debate between the users as possible.
AP1 (Applicant): That's why it had the guidelines.
AP1 (Applicant): That's why it had the filtering system, notice and takedown system.
AP1 (Applicant): And as usual, they have phone and email, and also the voluntary supervising of some comments.
AP1 (Applicant): The third questions concerned them, what kind of words did the filtering system had as inappropriate during the time of this court case when it was initiated?
AP1 (Applicant): To start with, we have to say that during 2006, this automatic filtering system had been in place for one year.
AP1 (Applicant): So it had been technologically as good as it could be to take into account that it was just one year old.
AP1 (Applicant): As of today, it does include all relevant vulgar words that are accepted in a community as such to be vulgar and not to be seen in a commentarium.
AP1 (Applicant): Secondly, the Honorable Judge Robert Spano had some questions to the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): The first question was that, was it really that the defamed person brought the claim just only after six weeks after the article was published?
AP1 (Applicant): And did the defamed person also submit a claim for damages?
AP1 (Applicant): And was there any contact between these six weeks between the applicant and the defamed person?
AP1 (Applicant): The answer is that no, there was no contact before the six weeks.
AP1 (Applicant): The Delphi got the claim six weeks after the article was published.
AP1 (Applicant): It was the first ever claim from that defamed person.
AP1 (Applicant): And the Delphi got it in the morning.
AP1 (Applicant): And the comments were removed during the same day.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the defamed person still decided to turn to the court.
AP1 (Applicant): The second question inquired about willful blindness institution that I mentioned during the submission before, that what kind of provocative article would this go into?
AP1 (Applicant): We submit that if the article was not neutral, then the section decisions would make more sense and could be applied to the real world, since, as the applicant explained, that willful blindness test would arguably make the applicant liable for the comments before this specific notice from the user or from the defamed person about the comment.
AP1 (Applicant): And why did we say that?
AP1 (Applicant): Is that, for example, in US, this willful blindness test is quite widely accepted.
AP1 (Applicant): Also, in UK, it has been established that willful blindness might be applicable for intermediaries.
AP1 (Applicant): We do know that ECJ has, in some cases, said that awareness that could be kind of understood as a blind willful blindness could be excluded because of the wording of EU directive that states that there has to be a specific knowledge.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the applicant has taken this position that in case they do have a very provocative, controversial article of an investigative journalist, for example, then the comments might turn less appropriate than the public debate itself needs to be taking place.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, it is kind of a voluntary method of having a civil conversation as well.
AP1 (Applicant): However, we want to note about this dispute here that, as the first section also ruled, that this article was neutral.
AP1 (Applicant): It was balanced one.
AP1 (Applicant): It did correspond to all journalistic ethics demands.
AP1 (Applicant): However, still, the first section said that the applicant should have anticipated bad comments.
AP1 (Applicant): Just to have a rhetoric question that in case of a weather forecast, if the weather forecast would be that during next week there will be no rain, then the applicant would have to anticipate bad comments from, let's say, a potato grower who is expecting rain to keep growing his potatoes.
AP1 (Applicant): So everyone who has visited the internet would know that bad comments can be anticipated anywhere, and not just comments.
AP1 (Applicant): We are talking about third party content.
AP1 (Applicant): So in case of a very beautiful song in YouTube, you can anticipate bad comments.
AP1 (Applicant): It's just the way, as a judge from US has said a few years back, that in internet, the third party content is just as large and is just as the human thought itself.
AP1 (Applicant): So we really cannot know where to anticipate bad comments.
AP1 (Applicant): The second question was about whether there was any application for closure of the commenters in the national proceedings by Delphi or by the defamed persons.
AP1 (Applicant): No, in the dispute starting in 2006, there was not.
AP1 (Applicant): However, after that, Delphi, as well as many other media organizations in Estonia, have applied to have commenters brought into the proceedings of third parties.
AP1 (Applicant): It has been done a few times.
AP1 (Applicant): However, in a district level, the courts have always annulled these decisions, and commenters are not being accepted as third parties in Estonia because of the Supreme Court decision in Delphi versus Estonia.
AP1 (Applicant): Next, Honorable Judge Guido Rabondi had a question for the government.
AP1 (Applicant): And then the next question from Mr. Mark Villager
AP1 (Applicant): was that how many moderators does Delphi have?
AP1 (Applicant): We have five moderators at this time.
AP1 (Applicant): However, as we have stated many times, that the applicant does not moderate all comments.
AP1 (Applicant): They only moderate comments basically in two or three situations.
AP1 (Applicant): First, when the comment has been reported by any user as being inappropriate, then it gets kind of like a little light.
AP1 (Applicant): And the moderator would have to read the comment and decide whether to leave it up and be liable and responsible for the content of it or to take it down.
AP1 (Applicant): The second possibility is, as already described, that in case the comments that are written by the users to the provocative articles.
AP1 (Applicant): And the third one is that really, if an author of the article is interested in the comments, read those and then sees an inappropriate comment, just as this, then the journalist itself reports it to the moderator.
AP1 (Applicant): The final question came from Honorable Judge Ledi-Pianku.
AP1 (Applicant): And it regarded that how would the Delfi's rules and guidelines that the users are responsible for their own content and the comments if the user is anonymous.
AP1 (Applicant): In this regard, we note that the anonymity in the comments platform is not absolute.
AP1 (Applicant): It's just anonymity to not disclose your identity to the public.
AP1 (Applicant): However, when the court's proceedings or the criminal proceedings are initiated, then the user is no more anonymous because it can be identified.
AP1 (Applicant): And as Delfi's experience confirms, the vast majority of users are identified and can be brought to justice.
AP1 (Applicant): As this 10 minutes is not yet over, I would like to, in conclusion, state that the first section findings were about strict liability for intermediaries.
AP1 (Applicant): And I stress about intermediaries, not the media organization having a comments platform.
AP1 (Applicant): Since there is no difference whether these findings are applied to a media outlet having a comments platform, or a YouTube having a third party video, or blog hoster having comments under the blogs, or let's say even wider, the blog service for the blogs, it is applicable to all intermediaries.
AP1 (Applicant): There is nothing unique about the applicant that would make this case to be applicable only to this kind of news portal having a comments platform underneath the articles.
AP1 (Applicant): And I believe it is appropriate to conclude with a quotation from a person whose task is to uphold the values common to us all, namely, Frank Del Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression.
AP1 (Applicant): In his 2011 report, he said two very, very important thoughts.
AP1 (Applicant): Firstly, that censorship measures should never be delegated to private entities.
AP1 (Applicant): And secondly, that no one should be held liable for content on the internet of which they are not the author of.
AP1 (Applicant): With this, I conclude.
AP1 (Applicant): And the applicant urges this esteemed court to keep these thoughts in mind when deciding this case, Del Rue versus Estonia.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je donne la parole au gouvernement.
GR1 (Government): Thank you Mr. President, distinguished members of the court, and thank you for the questions.
GR1 (Government): First I will answer the question put by Judge Spano.
GR1 (Government): Questions.
GR1 (Government): Although Delfi's judgment was the first judgment where liability of an online news portal was assessed in changing circumstances, there is always a first case which sets the precedent and where the existing law can be interpreted and to new technical solutions as well.
GR1 (Government): But previous case law was clear about the liability of the publisher and did not leave any doubts that the disclosure is liable for defaming comments if it is guilty and regardless of the means of disclosing.
GR1 (Government): We are of the opinion that Delfi should have ensured when allowing anonymous commentators to post comments on Delfi's webpage that the rights of third persons were protected as well.
GR1 (Government): Since Delfi was not an intermediary, publishing comments was part of its journalistic activities as we have established by the facts of the case.
GR1 (Government): And Delfi executed control over the comments which also means that it took the liability over the comments.
GR1 (Government): Concerning your question about the references or the comparisons to Facebook and Twitter, we find that first and foremost the difference lies in the fact that in other forums a person owning a profile or account can amend and delete what he has uploaded.
GR1 (Government): In addition, in such environments people themselves initiate new themes.
GR1 (Government): Delfi instead publishes an article it finds to be of public interest and asks people to comment that article and relates the comments to its journalistic activities, profiting on those comments.
GR1 (Government): Thus, if social media networks function on different bases, and we cannot here give the answer how and when they will be liable, but it is always for the courts to evaluate the facts of the case and evaluate whether that service provider in question have been active or have it been passive.
GR1 (Government): And it's very likely that in case of Facebook or Twitter, those portals are found to be passive and neutral and the EU directive foreseeing the exemptions from liability might be applicable to those portals.
GR1 (Government): And finally, concerning your question about actual knowledge and willful blindness, Delfi had created an environment where it was possible to comment articles of a certain degree of public interest without any identification whatsoever.
GR1 (Government): The article on the question dealt with a subject that negatively affected a large number of people, therefore the domestic courts and the chamber agreed that in this case Delfi could have realized that it might cause negative reactions and considering the general reputation of comments on Delfi's news portal, there was a higher than average risk that the negative comments could go beyond the boundaries of acceptable criticism and reach a level which is not allowed.
GR1 (Government): The indicators were, among others, number of the comments posted on the article in question indicated a great deal.
GR1 (Government): Delfi itself kept the article on the top of the page longer, so it should have been cautious about the consequences.
GR1 (Government): I would like to reply to the question put by Judge Raimondi regarding possible changes to Estonian legislation.
GR1 (Government): No, the Estonian case law is consistent, there is no gap.
GR1 (Government): There has been only a few cases, but it is sufficient for acknowledging that also online news portal is jointly liable with the authors of anonymous comments, as the media organizations have always been jointly liable with the authors, and the online publishers have themselves taken measures to balance the different rights, as we have indicated in our memorial.
GR1 (Government): They do moderating, they have filtering systems, they might make difference between subjects which need registering or which can be commented anonymously.
GR1 (Government): It is the portal's choice what measures to take, but it is for the portal to guarantee the balance between different rights.
GR1 (Government): And it is always for the domestic courts to assess whether the exemption deriving from the EU law is applicable or not, and I would also again like to highlight or stress that no hosts have been held liable under general civil law regulation in Estonia, neither before Delfi's judgment or after it.
GR1 (Government): Judge Simela did not put questions to the government, but I would still like to comment the question about freedom of expression in internet, because the government wants to underline that the disclosure of information in internet should also not infringe the rights of third persons, which are protected by Article 8 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): Thus we cannot see how the freedom of expression in internet could be limitless if it is not limitless in other forums.
GR1 (Government): And finally I would like to make two remarks regarding what has been expressed by Delfi earlier.
GR1 (Government): Namely the domestic courts did not establish that the applicant was an intermediary, although Delfi has called itself to be an intermediary today again.
GR1 (Government): It was for the applicants in domestic courts to prove the circumstances that it could rely on the exemptions that it was an intermediary, but Delfi could not establish it in the domestic courts, so we are of the opinion that this fact that Delfi was not an intermediary and it was a publisher cannot be changed here and today anymore.
GR1 (Government): And secondly the government wishes to underline that the domestic courts evaluated the facts in aggregate.
GR1 (Government): It was taken into account how the portal was structured and how the comments were integrated into the journalistic activities of Delfi, and only thereafter it was established that Delfi was a publisher.
GR1 (Government): So I thank you.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Bonjour.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Je déclare ouvert l'audience publique sur la recevabilité, le fonds de l'affaire Gouarre Patte contre l'Andorre.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): L'affaire a été introduite devant la Cour le 4 juin 2010 par un ressort du Saint-Landorin, M. Gérard Gouarre Patte,
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): en vertu de l'article 34 de la Convention.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Elle a été attribuée à la troisième section de la Cour conformément à l'article 52 du règlement de la Cour.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): La requête a été communiquée au gouvernement le 23 mai 2011.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Le gouvernement défendeur est représenté par son adjointe Mme Carmen Perna Garcia et par Mme Mireia Fernández Llorens, avocate du gouvernement de la Principauté d'Andorre.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): La requérant est représentée par M. Bellera Gracia,
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): avocate.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): La requérant est aussi présente.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Je salue les comparandes au nom de la Cour et je profite aussi de l'occasion pour saluer une délégation de magistrats serbes présentes à l'audience.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Ayant consulté l'agent du gouvernement et les représentants de la requête, j'ai fixé aussi lors de la parole.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Nous entendrons suiviment Mme Carmen Perna Garcia pour le gouvernement et puis M. Bellera Gracia
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): pour le requérant.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Je dois expliquer qu'en suivant l'interprétation dans les deux langues officielles de la Cour, l'anglais et le français, l'interprétation en serbe a été autorisée au profit du groupe de magistrats mentionné auparavant qui assiste à cette audience.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Cette interprétation n'est pas assurée par la Cour et ne fera donc pas partie de l'enregistrement officiel de la procédure.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Alors la parole est à Mme Carmen Perna Garcia.
GR1 (Government): Avec la permission de la Cour, il nous a été demandé si les principes établis dans l'arès coppola contre l'Italie, numéro 2, sont-ils applicables aux caractéristiques de la peine d'interdiction définitive d'exercer sa profession imposée au requérant.
GR1 (Government): En ce qui concerne la première question, nous pouvons apprécier que les principes établis dans l'arès coppola, numéro 2, ne sont pas applicables au cas d'espèce.
GR1 (Government): D'un côté, l'arès rappelle le principe de non-rétroactivité des lois pénales plus sévères, mais aussi et implicitement le principe de rétroactivité de la loi pénale plus douce, qui se traduit par la règle voulant que, si la loi pénale en vigueur au moment de la commission de l'infraction et les lois pénales postérieures adoptées avant le prononcé d'un jugement définitif sont différentes, le juge doit appliquer celles dont les dispositions sont les plus favorables aux prévenus, paragraphe 109 de l'arès.
GR1 (Government): Dans le cas d'espèce, Guaré contre Landor, le requérant ne s'est pas vu appliquer au moment du prononcé de son jugement définitif une peine pénale inconnue au moment de la commission des infractions, ni plus sévère édictée postérieurement.
GR1 (Government): La loi pénale qui fut appliquée au cas de M. Guaré
GR1 (Government): était celle qui se trouvait en vigueur au moment de la commission des délits.
GR1 (Government): M. Guaré fut condamné l'an 2000
GR1 (Government): à 5 ans d'imprisonnement pour abus malhonnête dans l'exercice de ses fonctions de médecin gynécologue et à une peine complémentaire d'interdiction d'exercice perpétuel en tant que médecin, en vertu de ce qui est stipulé dans l'article 37 du code pénal du 11 juillet 1990.
GR1 (Government): A différence du cas de M. Scopola,
GR1 (Government): les tribunaux andorrans n'ont pas appliqué à M. Guaré
GR1 (Government): une loi inconnue au moment de la commission des délits pour lesquels il fut condamné.
GR1 (Government): 5 ans après avoir été condamné, en février 2005, le nouveau code pénal a modifié les dispositions relatives aux peines complémentaires.
GR1 (Government): Ce même texte établit la possibilité de faire la révision de peines privatives de liberté de venue ferme dans certaines conditions établies dans le code de procédure pénale.
GR1 (Government): Ces conditions sont essentiellement que le jugement ou l'arrêt ait été fondé sur un document ou un témoignage avéré faux en postérité, qu'il soit en contradiction avec un autre arrêt ou jugement rendu pour le même fait, que l'on arrive à connaître l'innocence du condamné ou bien encore, quand le condamné n'a pas pu bénéficier d'une réduction de peine appliquée à d'autres dans la même situation du fait de ne pas avoir présenté un recours.
GR1 (Government): Il est clair que la volonté du législateur serait d'avoir les éléments pour permettre de corriger ou améliorer les cas qui auraient été mal jugés ou encore quand il y est en doute sur la culpabilité du condamné.
GR1 (Government): La législation prévoit la révision pour des faits nouveaux ou des interprétations qui n'auraient pas été tenues en compte lors du procès, mais pas pour des dispositions édictées des années plus tard.
GR1 (Government): M. Gouaret demande la révision de sa peine devenue définitive,
GR1 (Government): le recours porté sur le maintien de la peine imposée d'interdiction d'exercice.
GR1 (Government): Le code pénal qui fut adopté en 2005 et qui fit l'objet d'un décret législatif en décembre 2008 prévoit dans son article 7 que le condamné en application de la loi antérieure bénéficie également de la disposition la plus favorable.
GR1 (Government): Et la disposition transitoire 2e du même code prévoit que les personnes condamnées avec des peines privatives ou restrictives de liberté et non suspendues peuvent formuler un recours en révision dans les termes prévus à l'article 253 du Code de procédure pénale d'Andorre.
GR1 (Government): Cet article 253 établit les conditions de révision déjà mentionnées uniquement pour des peines privatives de liberté que la demande de M. Gouaret ne remplit pas,
GR1 (Government): telles que reconnaît le tribunal constitutionnel dans l'arrêt du 1er février 2010.
GR1 (Government): Notre Constitution garantit expressement dans son article 3 la non rétroactivité des dispositions restrictives des droits individuels.
GR1 (Government): Ayant en effet des favorables ou établissant une peine plus sévère, entre autres, mais qui n'a rien à voir avec une révision.
GR1 (Government): D'un autre côté, l'article 88 de la même Constitution établit que les jugements devenus fermes acquièrent autorité de choses jugées et ne peuvent être modifiées ou annulées en dehors des cas prévus par la loi.
GR1 (Government): Le principe de la Convention concernée par l'article 253 et le principe de la Convention concernée par l'article 2 sont donc garantis et les tribunaux les ont respectés.
GR1 (Government): Au-delà du fait que le principe de non rétroactivité de loi pénale plus sévère n'a pas été mis en cause, les tribunaux internes ont pu observer que la demande en révision de M. Gouaret
GR1 (Government): ne respecte pas les exigences de l'article 253 du code cité auparavant.
GR1 (Government): Par exemple, le tribunal supérieur de justice a déclaré non recevable la demande, mais non sans avoir auparavant pu observer que M. Gouaret avait jui de ses droits
GR1 (Government): et avait pu se défendre avec toutes les garanties reconnues par la Constitution et les lois inspirées de la Convention.
GR1 (Government): L'an 2000, les tribunaux andorrans du pénal ont imposé à M. Gouaret une peine complémentaire
GR1 (Government): d'interdiction d'exercice de la profession de médecin gynécologue perpétuelle dûment prévue dans le code pénal car ils ont tenu compte de la gravité des délits commis.
GR1 (Government): Cette peine est devenue ferme et définitive.
GR1 (Government): M. Gouaret a commis plusieurs délits d'abus malhonnêtes
GR1 (Government): contre ses patientes dans son cabinet et pendant le déroulement de sa profession.
GR1 (Government): C'est faux que cette sanction pénale complémentaire ait été appliquée arbitrairement.
GR1 (Government): L'application de cette peine complémentaire n'est pas de pourvue de fin préventive et dissuasive et a tenu compte des circonstances du cas de M. Gouaret
GR1 (Government): qui a commis des délits très graves pendant son exercice professionnel.
GR1 (Government): La peine de privation d'exercice s'avère donc proportionnée au cas d'espèce.
GR1 (Government): C'est l'exercice de sa spécialité médicale qui a permis à M. Gouaret
GR1 (Government): accéder à ses victimes et en abuser en trahissant leur confiance.
GR1 (Government): Les droits de M. Gouaret se trouvent confrontés