TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): No other expertise has been disposed of, the authorities ceased to refer to the applicant's alleged alcoholism.
AP1 (Applicant): The observations of the Romanian government do not refer to these forensic conclusions, which are kept under absolute silence.
AP1 (Applicant): In 2007, three years after the road accident occurred, a technical expertise was made.
AP1 (Applicant): On 30th of March 2009, the police ordered a new technical expertise at the National Institute of Forensic Expertise as a request of the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): The expert report was drafted in September 2010 after one and a half years, and the conclusions were that the circumstances in which the accident occurred cannot be established certainly.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant filed a criminal complaint against the prosecutors and the police officers, who ordered on 2nd of February 2011 the removal from criminal prosecution of the two accused.
AP1 (Applicant): The prosecutor general of the prosecutor's office attached to the Polish Court of Appeal rejected the complaint, claiming that it is obviously improper and expresses, in fact, the petitioner's desire for revenge against those who handled and solved the criminal case.
AP1 (Applicant): For judgment of the complaint against removal from the prosecution of the accused from 2nd of February 2011, the applicant requested the High Court of Cassation and Justice to transfer the file and argued that the prosecutors who gave the resolutions in question cannot be impartial, and all they do is against him.
AP1 (Applicant): The High Court of Cassation and Justice, based on the data submitted by the applicant, appreciated that his fears were founded, and the case was sent from Polish Court to the 6th District Court of Bucharest.
AP1 (Applicant): A final solution, 3rd, for the removal from criminal prosecution was disposed on 3rd of May 2012, and on 21st of December 2012 by criminal sentence number 2414, the Polish Court rejects this complaint against the solution for the reason that the term of a criminal liability prescription was fulfilled on 3rd of June 2012 during the criminal prosecutions.
AP1 (Applicant): The criminal sentence was final.
AP1 (Applicant): There was no way to appeal against it.
AP1 (Applicant): On 21st of December 2012, eight years had passed since 3rd of December 2004, the date of the road accident in which the applicant was involved.
AP1 (Applicant): The criminal investigation was not effective.
AP1 (Applicant): Three solutions of removal from criminal prosecution have been given during the criminal prosecution.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant has repeatedly complained and gave these solutions.
AP1 (Applicant): As soon as the appeal has been effective, showing diligence, and without abusing the remedies available to him by law, then these complaints were all admitted.
AP1 (Applicant): The court stated in case Voiculescu versus Romania and Dumitru Popescu versus Romania that the factual nature of the investigation must be provided by the authorities and not based on the vigilance of the civil party.
AP1 (Applicant): The Romanian state has never offered the victim any kind of reparation for the damages suffered.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was a civil party in the criminal proceedings, but in the face of the abuses committed by the state authorities and their official tolerance, it had no effect.
AP1 (Applicant): In the case of Toncev versus Bulgaria, the court found that the failure to dissolve the civil aspect in the case of criminal liability infringed the applicant's right of access to justice provided by Article VI of the Conventions.
AP1 (Applicant): The purpose of the state's obligations as shown in Kotelniko versus Russia has not been fulfilled.
AP1 (Applicant): No liability has been established, and no compensation has been granted to the victim.
AP1 (Applicant): As the applicant claim improved, in this case, the authorities behaved abusive, defying the law, not respecting the applicant's rights.
AP1 (Applicant): National courts have demonstrated professionalism, but they have been unable to do anything to find out the truth and punish the guilty, because no national court has been invested with the merits by the indictment that the government has shown to be legal and normally in the annexed case law.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant also addressed to the state institutions at all times.
AP1 (Applicant): The Ministry of Justice, the General Prosecutor's Office, the Superior Counsel of Magistrate made dozens of complaints and memos showing the abuses and injustices committed by the authorities in the criminal investigation they carried out.
AP1 (Applicant): The state institutions have had no reaction.
AP1 (Applicant): In this case, the authorities have pursued, thought, and acted for the cessation of the criminal trial, either by removing from criminal prosecution of suspects, which was not possible due to the fight, the vigilance of the applicant, or by passing a long period of time so as to the term of prescription of criminal liability to be fulfilled, which was possible after an eight-year period against all efforts of the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): Regarding the case law submitted by the government, I showed that none of the 127 judgments is similar to the applicant's case.
AP1 (Applicant): In all these national court decisions, without exception, the circumstances of the offense were established, and the guilt was established.
AP1 (Applicant): In the prosecution phase, the criminal investigation was completed before the criminal liability prescription.
AP1 (Applicant): I would like to refer to a very important aspect of establishing guilt, also related to the civil action as set out in the case law of the government.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, in decision number 901, for 9th of December, 2004, file number 5697 by 62, by 2013 of the Brasov Court of Appeal, annex G, the national court ruled that the guilt in the conditions of a road accident with victims and bodily injuries is established by the organs of criminal prosecution and not by the party, the injured person.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, in the present case, the criminal investigation was not established. The applicant
AP1 (Applicant): could not promote civil action for compensation for the damage because the condition knowing the culprit was not fulfilled.
AP1 (Applicant): The only thing the applicant could do was to file a civil complaint and get an insurance company and the leasing company for the vehicle he was driving, which was totally destroyed in the road accident.
AP1 (Applicant): He initially won the case.
AP1 (Applicant): Indemnity and moral damages were paid.
AP1 (Applicant): But in the last appeal, the court upheld the appeal of the two companies and ordered a retrial.
AP1 (Applicant): In the retrial, the view of the courts changed in the sense that they considered that civil action do not derive from a criminal offense and forced the applicant to pay a large sum of money representing a stamp duty.
AP1 (Applicant): Requests for tax re-examination were rejected.
AP1 (Applicant): The complainant was unable to play the stamp duty, and the complaint was rejected.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was forced to return the sums of money received by previous court decisions.
AP1 (Applicant): In case law attached by the government, it can be noticed that in the case of a road accident where the victim's car was completely destroyed, the insurance companies have paid the indemnity.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, the contrast created by this case law with regard to the applicant's case is absolute.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant did not have any chance of legality or normality, but it is shown in the case law of the government.
AP1 (Applicant): At present, the applicant is a seriously affected person, having suffered from injuries caused by the road accident and multiple surgical interventions.
AP1 (Applicant): The displaced fractures have not been resolved.
AP1 (Applicant): A portion of the intestine was dissected, and the trachea section was also dissected.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant is mentally affected by the accident and its consequences, but also by the behavior of the authorities, as evidenced by the psychiatric forensic expertise of 2007 and the psychiatric certificate of 2017.
AP1 (Applicant): Mental suffering is also accentuated by the fact that the applicant was a judge, a professional of law, and every abuse, each violation of his rights deeply affected him because he knew the law.
AP1 (Applicant): Finally, I would like to refer to the speech of Mr. Emmanuel
AP1 (Applicant): Macron, the president of France, to the European Court of Human Rights, which I appreciate very clearly, very firmly, and which marks, in my opinion, the beginning of a new stage of evolution in the work of the court in particular, but also of the European institutions in general in defending and respecting human rights.
AP1 (Applicant): I cite, respect for human rights is being undermined.
AP1 (Applicant): They are considered a weakening by those who seek to fight them or reduce them while they are a force, a specificity, while they are universal.
AP1 (Applicant): They are presented as an option while they are an obligation.
AP1 (Applicant): Respect for human rights is a legal obligation.
AP1 (Applicant): Their defense is a political diplomatic act.
AP1 (Applicant): It is a fight with weapons, frighteningly effective of the dialogue.
AP1 (Applicant): Angeles in this matter as a renunciation are often only the other names of impotence.
AP1 (Applicant): I end at this site.
AP1 (Applicant): For Romania, the respect of human rights was, in this case, an option.
AP1 (Applicant): I invite the court to hold that there has been a violation of Article 2, Article 3, Article 6, Paragraph 1, Article 8, and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in procedural terms and to admonish this application.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mr. Tănase. I thank both parties for their submissions.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Are there any questions? Yes, Judge Nußberger, please.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): I would just want to ask a question to the applicant concerning what he told us about the insurance company and the trial, the procedure against the insurance company.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): So, I understand the complaint was brought on 28th November 2006, so that is two years after the accident.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): I would like to know, was this insurance obligatory or voluntary?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And what exactly was insured?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Was it an insurance that covered both the possibility that the applicant was guilty or not guilty in the accident and only the damages, his own damages, or also the damages of the other parties?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): So, what kind of insurance was it?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And why was this complaint brought only in 2006, and that is two years after the accident and not immediately?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Merci beaucoup.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Je voudrais poser une question spécialement au gouvernement, mais si le requérant peut donner des réponses, je l'apprécierai aussi.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Le gouvernement nous invite à dire que ni l'article 2, ni l'article 3 dans son volet procédural sont applicables dans le cas d'espèce.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Mais il a dit quelque part, quand il a plaidé la question du traitement, enfin l'absence d'un traitement inhumain ou dégradant, que l'espèce pourrait être couverte par l'article 8, si j'ai bien compris, l'article 8 dans son volet procédural.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Alors, à supposer que l'article 8 s'applique, que cet article exige des garanties procédurales, quelles seraient alors ces garanties procédurales?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Est-ce que ces garanties procédurales ont été offertes par le système roumain?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Est-ce dans la procédure pénale ou exclusivement dans la possibilité d'une procédure civile?
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Judge Eicke, please.
Tim Eicke (Judge): Thank you very much. I have one question for the applicant, really to ask directly why
Tim Eicke (Judge): the applicant decided not to bring a civil claim under what I understand was the old Article 998 and 999 of the old civil code for damages in tort against the two drivers allegedly responsible for the accident. The second question I have is for both parties
Tim Eicke (Judge): and it's this. In assessing whether remedies have been exhausted, is it relevant for this
Tim Eicke (Judge): court to consider the fact that the applicant was a judge and a practicing lawyer for some time and therefore knew or ought to have known what the relevant available remedies and their respective benefits or limitations would be? Thank you very much.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): If there are no more questions, the court will now withdraw, say, until half past ten, following which the parties will be able to submit brief observations in reply to each other's submissions and reply to the questions from the judges.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): So the hearing is suspended.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I give the floor to Mrs. Brumar.
GR2 (Government): Afin de répondre aux questions posées par les membres de cette honorable grande chambre, je...
GR2 (Government): vais commencer par réitérer un aspect déjà mentionné dans notre plaidoirie, à savoir que l'action civile accessoire à une procédure de nature criminelle et l'action civile introduite de manière séparée devant l'instinct civil ont le même but, à savoir obtenir une analyse sur la réunion des conditions de la responsabilité civile délectuelle et si la réponse à cette analyse est affirmative dans le sens où il y a toutes les conditions réunies, d'obtenir des dommagements matériels et moraux pour le préjudice souffert.
GR2 (Government): Ainsi, de notre avis, en plaidant sur l'inapplicabilité des articles 2 ou 3 de la Convention, vu le manque de tous éléments intentionnels, nous nous positionnons dans le même cadre-figure que celui retenu par la Cour dans un arrêt contre la Roumanie, SB, où la Cour a confirmé sa jurisprudence constante en indiquant que sur le terrain de l'article 8, on doit être en présence d'une voie de recours non pénale qui permet à la partie récurrente d'identifier et de sanctionner la personne responsable d'une attente involontaire à l'intégrité physique.
GR2 (Government): Dans cet arrêt, la Cour a examiné l'effectivité d'une procédure non pénale sous l'aspect des preuves et de l'implication de la récurrente dans la procédure afin d'évaluer l'existence d'un voie de recours utile.
GR2 (Government): Alors, la réunion des garanties procédurales qui vise à assurer l'existence d'une voie adéquate pour permettre à la partie désirante l'identification et, le cas échéant, la sanction de la personne responsable d'une attente involontaire à l'intégrité physique et la voie civile.
GR2 (Government): A notre opinion.
GR2 (Government): De plus, une note supplémentaire, notre nouveau code de procédure, notre nouveau code pénal prévoit que les attentes involontaires à l'intégrité corporelle qui déterminent des législations nécessitant moins de 90 jours de soins médicaux ne sont plus pénalement sanctionnées.
GR2 (Government): Alors, la voie civile est celle qu'une victime d'une telle attente doit emprunter.
GR2 (Government): La question de...
GR2 (Government): La question des conséquences de la qualité de requérants sur la connaissance des lois est, dans notre opinion, un élément supplémentaire dans l'analyse de l'accessibilité de l'obligation de connaître l'état d'évolution du cadre normatif et de la pratique des instances internes en la matière.
GR2 (Government): Et c'est dans ce sens que nous avons apprécié que le requérant, ancien magistrat, et s'entourant des conseils éclairés ne pouvaient pas ignorer le fait que la pratique interne confirmait l'ouverture d'une telle voie de recours civil pour les victimes d'attentes corporelles involontaires afin de faire valoir leurs prétentions de réparation.
GR2 (Government): Bien sûr qu'il serait difficile d'identifier un cadre-figure qui présente tous les mêmes éléments que le cadre d'espèce, mais de la plénitude de la pratique interne versée au dossier, il résulte sans aucun doute l'approche des instances qui considéraient que le délai de prescription afin d'introduire une action en responsabilité civile délictuelle pourrait, à partir du moment de la finalisation de la procédure pénale, dans des cas qui ressemblent aux cas d'espèce et qui visent des accidents de la route, mais aussi dans d'autres cas.
GR2 (Government): Le principe est celui qui compte dans l'évaluation de la qualité, de la constance de la pratique interne.
GR2 (Government): Monsieur le Président, après avoir répondu aux questions et entendu le fait que l'intervention des représentants du requérant n'a pas apporté, à notre avis, des aspects nouveaux par rapport à ceux déjà traités dans nos observations écrites et dans notre plaidoirie d'aujourd'hui, je vous remercie pour m'avoir donné la parole.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Merci, merci beaucoup Madame Brumar.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I'm going to call now Mr. Tănase please.
AP1 (Applicant): The car was bought in Leasing.
AP1 (Applicant): It was also insured with an insurance company.
AP1 (Applicant): The plaintiff continued to pay for a good that did not exist anymore.
AP1 (Applicant): The insurance company did not want to pay the insurance because it invoked an exception clause, namely the presence of alcohol was a cause of exemption for the payment of the indemnity.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was wrongly accused of leaking alcohol, as I have shown.
AP1 (Applicant): The civil complaint was made in 2006 because the plaintiff hoped that his civil action would be resolved in the criminal trial.
AP1 (Applicant): What – this is never happened.
AP1 (Applicant): The accident took place under the old civil court.
AP1 (Applicant): The old regulation contained in Article 1998 civil court on civil tort liability enforced at the time of the road accident explicitly conditioned the engagement of civil liability on the fault of the author.
AP1 (Applicant): The condition of knowing the culprit was not accomplished.
AP1 (Applicant): Unlike the old regulation containing Article 998 civil code, the new regulation, Article 1349, new civil code, enforced in 2011, no longer explicitly makes the assumption of civil liability on the fault of the author, limiting the finding that there has been a violation by action or inaction of the rights and legitimate interests of others, blaming the fault presumed.
AP1 (Applicant): The plaintiff was entitled to dissolve the civil action in the criminal trial according to the law.
AP1 (Applicant): This has never happened, and after eight years, the cessation of the criminal trial was ordered because the term of the criminal liability prescription was fulfilled.
AP1 (Applicant): Relevant for dissolving the civil aspects of this case is the court's jurisprudence represented by Tončev versus Bulgaria.
AP1 (Applicant): I cite, the court does not find anything in the facts of the present case.
AP1 (Applicant): What's only material difference is that it's concerned privately rather than publicly prosecutable offense.
AP1 (Applicant): I make a bracket, in this case, it's about a publicly prosecutable offense.
AP1 (Applicant): I continue.
AP1 (Applicant): To prompt to vary this conclusion, it reiterates that where the domestic legal order provides litigants with an abnormal redress, such as civil party claim in the context of criminal proceedings, the state is under an obligation to ensure that they enjoy the fundamental guarantees laid down in Article VI, Paragraph 1.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, in the court's view, the applicant could not be expected to wait for the extinction of the criminal liability of the alleged perpetrator of the offense of which his son was the victim many years after making his original civil party claim, and even longer after the important events to bring a fresh claim before the civil courts, Katanasova and Dikenev also.
AP1 (Applicant): This conclusion is not altered by the fact he could have opted to bring a separate civil claim for the outset.
AP1 (Applicant): His preference for seeking damages in the context of criminal proceedings does not appear unjustified in the circumstances.
AP1 (Applicant): Having chosen this remedy, he was entitled to have his claim determined and not required to try the alternative avenue of redress available under Bulgarian law, or same Romanian law as I show.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Ališić and others against Bosnia and Herzegovina and others.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The case was lodged on the 30th of July, 2005, with the court under Article 34 of the Convention by three citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ms. Emina Ališić, Mr. Aziz Sadžak,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and Mr. Sakib Šahdanović.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The first applicant is also a German citizen.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the fourth section of the court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): It was declared admissible on the 17th of October, 2011.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): And on the 6th of November, 2012, a chamber constituted within that section adopted a judgment in the case.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On 4th and 5th February, 2013, respectively, the Serbian and Slovenian governments requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): And the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on the 18th of March, 2013.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The government of Bosnia and Herzegovina are represented by their agent, Ms. Mijić,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): assisted by Ms. Skalonjić, assistant agent
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ms. Veledar Arifagić, Mr. Kelić, Mr. Ćurak,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Bakić, Mr. Kubat, Ms. Tufek,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ms. Trossat, and Mr. Mahmutović, advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The Croatian government are represented by their agent, Ms. Stažnik,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): assisted by Ms. Katić, Ms. Metelko-zgombić,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ms. Bašić, Ms. Vlašić, Ms. Grabovac,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and Ms. Zvonar, advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The Serbian government are represented by their agent, Mr. Carić, assisted by Ms. Rodić,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ms. Dobrković, Ms. Petković, Mr. Milisavljević,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Kurbalija, and Ms. Đurđević, advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The Slovenian government are represented by their agent, Ms. Pintar-gosenca, assisted by Ms. Annacker
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Council, Ms. Nee, Ms. Prevc, Mr. Gabrovec,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mrs. Polak-petrič, and Mr. Kulick, advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The Macedonian government are represented by their agent, Mr. Bogdanov, assisted by Ms. Stanojevska,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The applicants are represented by Mr. Mujčin
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and Mr. Eser, assisted by Mr.Mustafić.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Mujčin for the applicants will speak first.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Then, Ms. Mijić for the Bosnia-Herzegovina government,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Stažnik for the Croatian government, Mr. Carić
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): for the Serbian government, Ms. Annacker
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): for the Slovenian government, and Mr. Bogdanov
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): for the Macedonian government.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Mr. Mujčin.
AP1 (Applicant): Good morning.
AP1 (Applicant): I will speak of my na- also auf russisch.
AP1 (Applicant): Господи, уважаемые господа, уважаемые суды.
AP1 (Applicant): Мы сматримы, что суд полностью и правильно, в отношении Сербии и Словении, применил право, конвенцию и протоколы, и что правильно решил, когда обязал их моим мандатам платить главный долг, в связи с проследствиями, как это было предназначено в суде.
AP1 (Applicant): Мы считаем, что приговоры, которые были заданы в завете Словении и Сербии, что этот случай будет снова рассматриваться перед Великим Великом, не основаны и не аргументированы.
AP1 (Applicant): По поводу предназначенных причин, я прошу суд, чтобы подтвердил такое решение.
AP1 (Applicant): Второе.