TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): But we know very well that due to the electoral rules, the specific composition of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat and the characteristics of the legislative process, the German government needs to cooperate with the opposition.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, it is unlikely that the government will use disciplinary procedure to systematically suppress the opposition.
AP1 (Applicant): Finally, I would like to put forward some general remarks concerning the case.
AP1 (Applicant): First, the political context.
AP1 (Applicant): It is true that we express the view that in Hungary, the democracy, the state of democracy and rule of law deteriorated in the last five years.
AP1 (Applicant): It is not a subjective or, if you like it, political view of the applicants.
AP1 (Applicant): It is not the subjective view of the legal representatives.
AP1 (Applicant): This view is backed by facts and backed by the opinion of other quite prestigious institutions and bodies.
AP1 (Applicant): Earlier, we referred to the Venice Commission and other NGOs.
AP1 (Applicant): We referred to the bodies of the European Union who has strongly and permanently criticized the Hungarian government.
AP1 (Applicant): In my view, these opinions shall be taken into consideration with adequate weight.
AP1 (Applicant): And in this respect, I shall add that the court, especially in Article 10 cases, takes into consideration the whole context.
AP1 (Applicant): And this is a political case.
AP1 (Applicant): It has obviously political context.
AP1 (Applicant): And in this respect, I have to add a new factual element to this case, which occurred on Monday this week, two days ago in the Hungarian Parliament.
AP1 (Applicant): One of the applicants being present in the room, Ms. Sayle, addressed the Hungarian Parliament.
AP1 (Applicant): Ms. Sayle addressed one of the hottest topics
AP1 (Applicant): nowadays in Hungary.
AP1 (Applicant): This topic was the low wages compared to the European Union average.
AP1 (Applicant): How can these wages be amended and why a lot of Hungarians leave the country?
AP1 (Applicant): According to the estimates, 300,000-400,000 Hungarians left Hungary and are looking for jobs somewhere else.
AP1 (Applicant): I think it's easy to see why it is a hot topic in Hungary.
AP1 (Applicant): And I repeat, it was Ms. Sayle's own speech.
AP1 (Applicant): During her speech, she and three other members of her party raised billboards.
AP1 (Applicant): In these billboards, there were written the names of the groups mostly endangered by this quite negative trend about which Ms. Sayle was talking.
AP1 (Applicant): The speaker immediately cut the word and Ms. Sayle
AP1 (Applicant): couldn't finish her speech.
AP1 (Applicant): Why am I mentioning this quite sad episode?
AP1 (Applicant): I'm mentioning it because I think that we are now on the top of a slippery slope.
AP1 (Applicant): We don't know how the disciplinary law will be applied in the nowadays Hungary.
AP1 (Applicant): It seems that the situation is deteriorating.
AP1 (Applicant): It seems that the disciplinary law is applied at will of the speaker and the governing majority.
AP1 (Applicant): And it is used in a way which silences the opposition views.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Karsai.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I give the floor to Mr. Tallódi.
GR1 (Government): Köszönöm, elnök úr, a szót.
GR1 (Government): Először Nuszberger bíróasszony kérdésére szeretnék röviden válaszolni, ami a súlyosan sértő kifejezés értelmezésével kapcsolatos.
GR1 (Government): A vonatkozó rendelkezések nem tartalmaznak külön definíciót a súlyosan sértő kategóriára, vagy ennek definíciójára.
GR1 (Government): Hangsúlyozni kell azonban, hogy ez nem csak a magyar házszabályban és a vonatkozó szabályokban, de más tagállamok szabályozásában és az európai szervezetek szabályozásában sem található meg, illetve lelhető fel.
GR1 (Government): Itt az Európa-Tanács parlamenti közgyűlésének eljárási szabályzatára utalnék, amely szerint az a közgyűlési tag szankcionálható, aki megzavarja a rendet az eljárás során.
GR1 (Government): Az eljárási szabályzat úgy fogalmaz, hogy a közgyűlés tagjai udvarias és tisztelettudó módon viselkednek egymással, a közgyűlés elnökével vagy más elnöklő személlyel, tartózkodnak minden olyan magatartástól, amely megzavarna az eljárást.
GR1 (Government): Definíció hiányában viszont értelem szerint az ülést vezető személy, elnök, házelnök, illetve vannak helyettese, akik éppen az ülésteremben helyet foglalnak, köztük adott esetben ellenzéki képviselők is, határozzák meg, hogy az adott fogalomhasználat miként értelmezhető.
GR1 (Government): Mindig a konkrét ügyben a konkrét mérlegelés kérdése ennek az eldöntése, tehát a gyakorlatban alakul annak a megítélése, hogy mit értünk súlyosan, sértő alatt.
GR1 (Government): Azt lehet mondani, hogy a beadványokban említett típusú magatartásokkal kapcsolatban egyfajta gyakorlat kialakult, mégpedig az, hogyha az illető a molinó vagy a drapéria felemelésével egyidőleg elhagyja az üléstermet, akkor szankciót alkalmaznak vele szemben.
GR1 (Government): Ha azonban nem hagyja el a helyét, és a helyén marad, akkor ebben az esetben vele szemben nem alkalmaznak szankciót.
GR1 (Government): Nagyon fontos itt utalni az indoklás kapcsán arra, hogy a kommunikáció formája, és nem a tartalma volt a lényegjelleme ennek a kérdésnek, és gyakorlatilag a jelenlévők, vagy a televízión az üléstkövetők egyértelműen láthatták, és megtapasztalhatták, hogy milyen típusú konkrét magatartásokról volt szó.
GR1 (Government): Ami a második kérdésre vonatkozik, vagy a második kérdést illeti, azzal kapcsolatban szeretném jelezni López Gerra úr kérdése kapcsán, hogy a képviselők lehetőségei a házelnöki kezdeményezéssel kapcsolatban mindenfajta lehetőségek részletes felsorolásával a kormány első beadványában, annak is a 43. és 44. pontjában kerültek kifejtésre.
GR1 (Government): Gyakorlatilag itt egy folyamatról van szó, nem egy egyszerű cselekményről, hanem egy folyamatról beszélhetünk, ami kezdődik a képviselői magatartással.
GR1 (Government): Ezt követően egy bizonyos időszak elteltével következik a házelnöki javaslat, majd egy újabb időszak elteltével születik meg a plenáris ülésen a döntés.
GR1 (Government): Ebben az időintervallumban és ebben az időtartamban van lehetősége adott esetben a képviselőknek bizonyos jogosultságukkal élni.
GR1 (Government): Az egyik ilyen lehetőség az ügyrendi bizottsághoz való fordulás.
GR1 (Government): Lehetősége volt jelen ügyben is egy ilyen kezdeményezéssel való élésre a képviselőknek, hogy álláspontjukat kifejthessék.
GR1 (Government): Nagyon fontos itt megígézni, hogy ezek a típusú ügyrendi bizottsági ülések gyakran és többször foglalkoznak ülésvezetési kérdésekkel.
GR1 (Government): Tehát van példa arra, hogy ilyen típusú kérdéseket vitatnak meg.
GR1 (Government): És arra is érdemes utalni röviden, hogy az ilyen típusú döntések ellen van fellebezési lehetőség adott esetben a plenáris ülés elé.
GR1 (Government): Tehát a plénum elé kerülhet a kérdés.
GR1 (Government): A másik ilyen lehetőség, amelyet ebben az időintervallumban lett volna lehetősége a képviselőknek igénybe venni, az az ügyrendi felszólalásnak a lehetősége, valamint a napirend utáni felszólalás, amely úgyszintén a rendelkezésükre állt.
GR1 (Government): Végül, de nem utolsó sorban érdemes megemlíteni a házbizottság lehetőségét a képviselőjogok gyakorlása kapcsán.
GR1 (Government): A házbizottság az a bizottsága az országgyűlésnek, ahol valamennyi képviselőcsoport képviseltetve van, valamint az országgyűlés vezető tisztségbizselői.
GR1 (Government): Fontos megégyezni, hogy fegyelmi ügyekkel kapcsolatban is eljár a házbizottság, tehát ilyen típusú ügyekben is dönt.
GR1 (Government): Ráadásul ezt a bizottságot, ha a frakció vezetők kezdeményezik, akkor kötelező összehívni.
GR1 (Government): Ami szintén egy fontos garanciális szabály.
GR1 (Government): Itt kell megemlíteni azt a szintén kiemelkedően fontos kérdéskört, hogy nem a véleményilvánítás tartalmáról, hanem a formájáról van szó ebben az ügyben, illetve ezekben az ügyekben.
GR1 (Government): Nagyon fontos megemlíteni, hogy azok a tártkörök, amelyben a mulinók feliratai felírásra kerülnek, és egyáltalán amely kontextusban ezek megjelentek, ezek már máshol is megjelentek és megjelenhettek, mind az országgyűlés keretein belül, mind az országgyűlés keretein kívül.
GR1 (Government): Tehát tulajdonképpen elmondható, hogy a valódi politikai diskurzus lefolytatására ezekben a tártkörökben lehetőség volt.
GR1 (Government): Nem lehet azt mondani, hogy tartalmi tekintetben bármilyen korlátozás érte volna a kérelmezőket.
GR1 (Government): Ehhez kapcsolódva lehet utalni arra, hogy miután nem tartalmi kérdésekről van szó, érdemes leválasztani ezt az egész kérdésköröt, az ellenzéki jogok kontra kormánypárti jogok vagy kormánypárthoz tartozó képviselők jogai kérdésköről.
GR1 (Government): Valójában nem tartalmi, hanem formai kérdésekről van szó.
GR1 (Government): Amire szintén utalnék, és ezt már a beadványban is említettük, hogy ebben az ügyben egy általános jellegű olyan döntés szüledik, amelyik adott esetben precedens jelleggel fog bírni a későbbiekre vonatkozóan.
GR1 (Government): Tehát ezeknek az előbb említett kérdéseknek a tisztázása is rendkívül fontos és fontos lesz.
GR1 (Government): Szeretnék még, tisztelt ügyvéd kollega, alkotmánybírósági panaszsal kapcsolatos kitételére röviden reagálni.
GR1 (Government): Ugye itt a kormány valóban ezzel kapcsolatban egy részletesebb beadványt nyújtott be, ezt nem szeretnénk pontosan és ismételten felidézni, hiszen ez mindenki rendelkezésre áll, aki a döntésmeghozatalára jogosult.
GR1 (Government): Itt most csak arra szeretnék utalni, hogy az új szabályozás valójában a régi bázisan született meg.
GR1 (Government): A 2012 előtti alkotmánybírósági joggyakorlat azt lehet mondani, hogy élő a 2012 utáni ügyekben is.
GR1 (Government): Született ugyanis egy alkotmánybírósági határozata, 20 per 2012-es határozat, amely rögzíti, hogy ha az alaptörvény szabályozási koncepciója azonos vagy hasonló a korábban hatályban volt alkotmány rendelkezéseihez, akkor a kiepített alkotmánybírósági gyakorlat az újabb ügyekben is irányadónak tekinthető.
GR1 (Government): Az alkotmánybíróság 3367 per 2012-es AB határozata az alkotmányjogi panaszsal kapcsolatos gyakorlatát az új alaptörvény és az alkotmánybírósági törvény alapján is fenntartottá.
GR1 (Government): Tehát ennyiben egy élő jogról és egy folytatólagosságról beszélhetünk.
GR1 (Government): Nagyon szépen egyszerettem volna.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The court will now deliberate on the merits.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The parties will be informed of the date of delivery, and I declare the hearing closed.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the admissibility and merits in the case of Mozer against the Republic of Moldova and Russia.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on the 24th of February, 2010, under Article 34 of the Convention by Moldova national, Mr. Boris Mozer.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the third section, which on the 20th of May, 2014, decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber, none of the parties having objected to this relinquishment.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The Moldovan government are represented by their agent, Mr. Lilian Apostol, assisted by Ms. Iulia Gheroghieș
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and by Mr. Ruslan Cașu, advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The Russian government are represented by their agent, Mr. Georgy Matyushkin, assisted by Mr. Nikolay Mikhaylov,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mrs. Olga Ocheretyanaya, and Mr. Dmitry Gurin, advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Alexandru Postica
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and Ms. Nicoleta Hriplivii, counsel assisted
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): by Mr. Pavel Postica, Mr. Vadim Vieru,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Alexandru Zubco, and Ms. Olga Manole, advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would also like to welcome a delegation of judges from the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Having consulted the agents of the Moldovan and Russian governments and the representatives of the applicant, I have determined the order of addresses as follows.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Apostol for the Moldovan government will speak first,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): then Mr. Matyushkin for the Russian government,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and then Ms. Hriplivii and Mr. Alexandru Postica
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): for the applicant.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Mr. Apostol.
GR2 (Government): Mr. President, Honorable Judge of the Grand Chamber,
GR2 (Government): Your Excellency, the representative of the Government of Russian Federation, the Federal Representative of the Applicants, distinguished audience.
GR2 (Government): May it please the Court, I plead on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Moldova.
GR2 (Government): This is already the third case before the Grand Chamber, implying similar question of jurisdiction and the responsibility of both respondent states.
GR2 (Government): It raises again the question of human rights violations coming from Transnistria, a breakaway region within the territory of Republic of Moldova with its own de facto local administration.
GR2 (Government): I recall that after the military conflict, a number of private persons claiming their affiliation for the Russian Federation and a position to the Republic of Moldova have declared the region as a new state entity.
GR2 (Government): Since then, no international recognition has been given to that region and to the local administration therein.
GR2 (Government): And my authorities have no effective control over that region yet.
GR2 (Government): In other words, I reiterate the situation amounted in the continuing frozen conflict, which resulted into the mode of 20 years of self-separation that became a black hole within the Espace Juridique de la Convention.
GR2 (Government): So why the third case before the Grand Chamber?
GR2 (Government): And what new questions it seeks to decide?
GR2 (Government): Allow me briefly to recall the very issue of the case and the most relevant facts for a better understanding of the questions of law that we are dealing with.
GR2 (Government): The applicant was accused and prosecuted by the so-called Transnistrian authorities according to the so-called criminal legislation of that region.
GR2 (Government): He was detained and sentenced by the criminal tribunal unlawful within the meaning of national and international law.
GR2 (Government): His detention involved, to the consequential extent, other alleged violations, such as human conditional detention, lack of medical assistance, prohibition of private meetings, et cetera.
GR2 (Government): Although the present case still involves, as I said, the question of two jurisdictions, however, another different and important question came into the attention of the Grand Chamber.
GR2 (Government): This is the question of unlawfulness of the so-called tribunals acting in the region, specifically, to what extent those internationally unrecognized foundations could be or not considerate as such for the purposes of the Convention.
GR2 (Government): I will address these questions, and accordingly, I will set the position of my government in reply to the applicant's complaints, which is consistent with our written submissions.
GR2 (Government): First, the jurisdiction.
GR2 (Government): My government's position follows the well-established case law dealing with similar problems in that breakaway region.
GR2 (Government): I refer to the Ilashko and Kantan cases that clarified the extent of jurisdiction in respect of both states.
GR2 (Government): I would briefly recall as follows.
GR2 (Government): The Republic of Moldova has its territorial jurisdiction over the region, but it has no effective control over it.
GR2 (Government): However, my government is still charged with positive obligation to do whatever possible for addressing each individual situation of a person claiming violation of the Convention rights and to pursue general measures for taking peacefully its effective control back.
GR2 (Government): This lack of effective control and the extent of its positive obligation disclose the degree of the responsibility of the Republic of Moldova.
GR2 (Government): The Russian Federation, on the other hand, retains its jurisdictional link by virtue of its continued military presence, economic and political support for that breakaway region, which could not otherwise survive.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, the Russian Federation bears the responsibility for the whole range of the Convention violation occurring in that region on account of its overall control exerted upon the de facto administration therein.
GR2 (Government): Accordingly, the court has already held that both respondent states retain their jurisdiction, though in different meaning and in different quality.
GR2 (Government): And I don't see any reason to hold otherwise in the present case.
GR2 (Government): However, as far as the jurisdiction is not equal to the meaning of international responsibility for a wrongful act, I will further elaborate on other issues relevant for the jurisdiction in the present case.
GR2 (Government): The Khatun case and thereafter other two cases before the Grand Chamber, Hassan and Jalot developed the jurisdiction question from a different angle, setting up the test of attribution or imputability.
GR2 (Government): I quote, the test for establishing the existence of jurisdiction has never been equated with the test for establishing the state responsibility for an internationally wrongful act under general international law.
GR2 (Government): This means that lack of any form of jurisdiction engage no responsibility.
GR2 (Government): While in cases where there is a jurisdictional link, the question of state responsibility becomes a separate issue examined in each individual case.
GR2 (Government): This international responsibility also depends on the form of jurisdiction, be that extraterritorial, personal, overall, direct, or implicit control over the local de facto administration assuming certain public powers.
GR2 (Government): Here, the court underlines the duty of the state with jurisdictional capacity to fulfill its positive obligations, regardless of the shape of its jurisdiction.
GR2 (Government): What concerns the Republic of Moldova?
GR2 (Government): The government agrees with its territorial jurisdiction, but without effective control.
GR2 (Government): And still, its positive obligations have been discharged in the present case, as it was in Ivancok and in Katan cases.
GR2 (Government): The facts of the case reveal that only my authorities, by all available means, have reacted to and assisted the applicant in pursuing the redress of his rights.
GR2 (Government): Our Supreme Court acknowledged the violation of his rights, and the prosecution initiated the criminal investigation into the events, which is pending.
GR2 (Government): Other measures are described in our written submissions.
GR2 (Government): I add that the Republic of Moldova has fulfilled its positive obligations to the extent where they clash with the overall control and powers of the Russian government.
GR2 (Government): So this is finally the clash between two jurisdictions.
GR2 (Government): Where the Republic of Moldova territorial jurisdictions, and lack of any effective control, eventually encounter the Russian Federation denial of its responsibility and its positive obligation for overall control exerted upon the de facto local administration.
GR2 (Government): In this sense, all positive obligations, be that Moldova's or Russia's, must be assessed proportionally to the level of control, in fact exercised by the both governments.
GR2 (Government): On the other hand, the clash of jurisdiction could be solved by discontinuing the Russian overall control.
GR2 (Government): Thus, the Russian government's positive obligation presupposes not a just passive inaction, but rather an active abstention.
GR2 (Government): Concluding on jurisdiction, I would like to refer to Monsieur René Casson, the very first president of the present court, who said in his Nobel Prize speech in 1968, I quote, there is no doubt concerning the essential question whether the nation have retained or lost their traditional exclusive jurisdiction over the treatment of their citizens.
GR2 (Government): That national jurisdiction will be always at the base.
GR2 (Government): It will remain primary, but it will no longer be exclusive.
GR2 (Government): The reasons behind these words is the shared responsibility engaged by the convention.
GR2 (Government): When it comes to the question of state responsibility in human rights, this jurisdiction fails to be exclusive defense, and it cannot cover the violations.
GR2 (Government): In the present case, and in all similar cases, the jurisdiction and the responsibility cannot be the matter of concern only for the Republic of Moldova as an expression of its territorial jurisdiction and positive obligations.
GR2 (Government): There can be and should be an active abstention from outside overall control, allowing the Republic of Moldova to put in practice its internationally recognized right to control its own territory and to establish therein its own legal order.
GR2 (Government): Speaking about legal order, I turn myself to the second fundamental question raised before the Grand Chamber, in particular about the unlawfulness of the self-created tribunals within the Transnistrian region.
GR2 (Government): The rest of the complaints of the applicants will become clearer once this fundamental question will be solved.
GR2 (Government): I also refer to all conclusions and written submissions that represent the valid position of my government before the present Grand Chamber on account of all applicants' complaints.
GR2 (Government): First of all, my government cannot plead against the applicants' complaint about their unlawfulness because my government cannot suggest even the slightest possibility to consider legitimate the Transnistrian tribunals.
GR2 (Government): Indeed, any judicial formation established in that region is unlawful.
GR2 (Government): These were the findings of the Moldovan Supreme Court that annulled the applicant's sentence on this very ground.
GR2 (Government): I recall that the Supreme Court followed the reason of the present court from the Ilashko case and agreed that any so-called tribunal set up in the Transnistrian region is outside of the Moldovan constitution, national and international law, as well as the convention.
GR2 (Government): Given this, any Transnistrian tribunal cannot deliver lawful judgments or order lawful detentions.
GR2 (Government): It lacks national and international validity.
GR2 (Government): Furthermore, the government must add that the Transnistrian tribunals, being outside of the national and international law, could not be regarded as means of exertions and could not guarantee fair trials.
GR2 (Government): In view of that, there has been a violation on this account, but my government does not bear the responsibility for that unlawfulness.
GR2 (Government): My government does not contribute nor does it tolerate the maintenance of such an unlawfulness.
GR2 (Government): The Republic of Moldova has never recognized, neither internationally nor internationally, the legitimacy of Transnistrian tribunals and the so-called de facto authorities from the region.
GR2 (Government): This is also true for the Russian government, which also has never recognized the self-declared Transnistrian state.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, this non-recognition encompasses the rebuttal of any legitimacy of the de facto courts and other public bodies within the region.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, in the opinion of all parties to the present litigation, the response to the second question is clear.
GR2 (Government): The so-called courts in the Transnistrian region are unlawful and could neither be exhausted nor considered legitimate for the purposes of the convention.