TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): Security reasons are the crucial factor in deciding which inmates will be eligible for available work, as almost all work is done outside the prison's premises and in the open in Bialovar town community.
GR1 (Government): Also, the number of available work posts for inmates was limited due to economic crisis and high unemployment rates in Croatia, where Bialovar community was no exception.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the fact that applicant was not engaged in work should not be viewed as a crucial factor in this case.
GR1 (Government): As to the independent evaluation of his case, the sentence execution judge of Bialovar County Court was the first interviewing the applicant about his complaints.
GR1 (Government): He sought and addressed all the documents related to prison condition, regularly visited the prison, and spoke with inmates.
GR1 (Government): As an independent and impartial judge, she was best placed to assess conditions in the prison, and she had a direct contact with the applicant and direct insight to the prison.
GR1 (Government): She found that the applicant's rights were not violated.
GR1 (Government): The Ombudsman also reviewed the applicant's complaint, finding that his central complaint related to transfer to Varazdin prison.
GR1 (Government): He also noted that the Bialovar prison was recently renovated.
GR1 (Government): The Constitutional Court also reviewed the applicant's submission and found that they were manifestly ill-founded.
GR1 (Government): Finally, the chamber itself found that the overall conditions in Bialovar prison in respect of the applicant did not amount to violation of Article 3.
GR1 (Government): In addition to chamber's finding in this case, the chamber assessed the conditions in this particular prison in the same time period in the case of Pozaic versus Croatia, and anonymously found a violation, a no violation of Article 3.
GR1 (Government): In light of above, although the applicant was not afforded four square meters at all times, domestic authorities undertook all possible measures to improve his conditions, and all of his complaints were properly examined.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, we deem that the court should reaffirm the flexible approach and find no violation of Article 3.
GR1 (Government): As for the applicant's just satisfaction claim, we find it to be over-excessive and unsubstantiated.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mrs. Stažnik and I thank both parties for their interventions.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): And now I would like to invite the judges of the Grand Chamber to ask the parties the questions they may have.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Judge President Sajó please.
András Sajó (Judge): This is a question to both parties, please.
András Sajó (Judge): Having read the file and various submissions by the parties, I still don't exactly picture how the person at the material time, the applicant, moved in the prison.
András Sajó (Judge): So I really would like to have a better understanding.
András Sajó (Judge): I assume that after having breakfast and having cleaned whatever he had to clean, was he, was the cell door open and he could leave wherever he wanted?
András Sajó (Judge): And then, assuming that this is the case, where was he able to go?
András Sajó (Judge): I understand that there is a courtyard.
András Sajó (Judge): There are some gym-like facilities.
András Sajó (Judge): But I don't, assuming that the same applies to all other inmates, how many of them are at the same time playing basketball, reading in the library?
András Sajó (Judge): I just don't understand because I don't have a full picture.
András Sajó (Judge): So if you could explain to me or to us what actually happens, how many people are there at the same time, what happens if it's raining?
András Sajó (Judge): So all of them have to leave the courtyard, and so on and so forth.
András Sajó (Judge): It would be extremely helpful to understand whether really he is not all the time, as the applicant's lawyer claims, is locked up.
András Sajó (Judge): So even if he's not locked up, I don't understand what exactly happens to him if he wishes to go one place or another within the prison.
András Sajó (Judge): And what is the size of those places compared to the number of all the inmates wishing to do the same thing he might wish?
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Judge Sajó.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): My question is addressed to the government.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): According to Croatian law, and I refer to Section 74 of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act, there shall be a minimum space of four square meters and 10 cubic meters per prisoner in each dormitory.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): This looks like to me as an absolute minimum approach to the size of the available space to each prisoner.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): Now, my question to the government is the following.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): How can the government today defend before this court a flexible overall approach, a flexible overall standard, which is not only contradictory vis-a-vis the national law, but also with the CPT standards to which the government itself has referred to?
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): President López Guerra, please.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): A very brief question to both parties.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): It's in average, how many hours a day is the prisoner locked up in his cell?
Luis López Guerra (Judge): I mean, you can give me a figure.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much. I understand there are no more questions.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): So the court will now rise for, say, until 20 past 10, following which the parties will return for a second round of short pleadings to respond to the submissions in the first round and to the judges' questions.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The hearing is now resumed, and I call Mr. Vidović.
AP1 (Applicant): Hvala lipa.
AP1 (Applicant): Obzirom da su bila prvo određene pitanja koja se tiču i samog podnositelja zahtjeva, ja bi volio istaknuti da uvjeti u ovom zatvoru su praktički ne promjenjeni više od 100 godina.
AP1 (Applicant): Mi smo svi druge standarde usvojili u postupanju ne samo sa zatvorenicima, ali uvjeti su ovdje ostali gotovo neizmjenjeni.
AP1 (Applicant): Taj zatvor nema osnovne uvjete za kraće boravljenje, a također ni za duže boravljenje, još manje.
AP1 (Applicant): Mi smo napomenuli da je prisutna opterećenost gotovo jedna od najviših u Republici Hrvatskoj.
AP1 (Applicant): To smo dokumentirali i sa izvješćem upravitelja zatvora, koji je naveo to i za novine.
AP1 (Applicant): Isto tako možemo spomenuti da je upravo taj upravitelj zatvora naveo, i to smo koristili u ovom predmetu u višinavrata kao dokaz, da se očelije otvaraju u 16 sati, da zatvornici izlaze van kao što je obaveza minimalno 2 sata dnevno do 19 sati, iz kojeg razloga se može samo utvrditi da njima je omogućeno više od 20 sati izlaženja iz tog zatvorenog prostora, obzirom da u tom prostoru oni ne samo spavaju, nego i jedu, obavljaju nuždu, gledaju televiziju i hrane se.
AP1 (Applicant): To je stvarno ponižavajući moment za svakog zatvorenika, pogotovo za ovakvu mladu osobu kao što je podnositi zahtjeva.
AP1 (Applicant): Mogu što se njega tiče još napomenuti da se cijelo vrijeme od strane vlade pokušava ga prikazati kao problematičnu osobu.
AP1 (Applicant): On je stupio na izdržavanje kazne zatvora prvi puta u svom životu u šestom mjesecu 2009. godine u kaznjonicu u Turopolju,
AP1 (Applicant): poloutvorenog tipa. Tamo je bio 3 mjeseca, 3,5. Ta kaznjonica ima i zatvoreni tip na kojeg ga se moglo primjestiti,
AP1 (Applicant): međutim, on je nakon 3 mjeseca, citiram vladu, zbog prijetnji da će pobjeći, primješten u zatvor u Bjelovaru.
AP1 (Applicant): Nikakav postupak konkretan protiv njega nije vođen, nije se otvrdilo što se točno dogodilo.
AP1 (Applicant): Možemo naravno samo pretpostaviti da je imao nekih osobnih problema, što, nažalost, nije rijedak slučaj u zatvorima, pogotovo za mlađe osobe, da sad ne idemo u detalje, ali možemo svi pretpostaviti o čemu se radi.
AP1 (Applicant): I on je na brzinu maknut iz tog tih uvjeta u kojima je i radio i s njim nije bilo praktički nikakvih problema da bi otišao u jedne ovakve nehumanitarne uvjete, jer ga očito nisu mogli zaštititi od drugih zatvorenika premještenjem u drugi odjel zatvorenog tipa. Kad je u Bjelovaru tražio, obzirom nije dobio adekvatnu zaštitu od suda,
AP1 (Applicant): kad je tražio zaštitu od pučkog pravobranitelja, odnosno obdusmana, koji se bavi konkretnim pitanjima i koji je najavio svoj dolazak u zatvor u Bjelovaru, on je u roku od dva tjedna premješten u drugi zatvor u Varaždinu, iako mu je prije toga u nekoliko navrata taj premješte uskračivan.
AP1 (Applicant): Znači, željelo se je isključivo izbjeći mogućnost da on bude u doticaju sa osobom koja će utvrditi uvjete u zatvoru i koji će utvrditi njegovo stvarno stanje u kojem se nalazi i njegove psihičke i ostale probleme koje su iz svega toga proizašle.
AP1 (Applicant): Da se radi o osobi koja nije problematična, vidimo i na kraju da je pet mjeseci prije završetka izdržane kazne otpušten na uvjetni otpust. Onaj koji radi probleme koji nema određene ocjene koje su kontinuirano rađene
AP1 (Applicant): unutar zatvorskog sustava, on ne bi bio otpušten pet mjeseci ranije od prije isteka kazne zatvora.
AP1 (Applicant): Prije na tome, to sve skupa upućuje da je on kontinuirano dovođen u situaciju da mu taj boravak bude maksimalno težen.
AP1 (Applicant): Drugo što bi još htio istaknuti, cijelo vrijeme se govori o uvjetima koji se nastoje poboljšati.
AP1 (Applicant): Republici Hrvatskoj je, rekli smo, u 2008. i 2009. naloženo od Ustavnog suda da promijeni uvjete u zatvorima.
AP1 (Applicant): Dan je i rok, najduže pet godina. Za tih pet godina nije izgrađeno ništa. Nije nijedno zatvorsko mjesto izgrađeno
AP1 (Applicant): kroz to vrijeme. Govori se sada da će to biti u 2016. Odobrena su određena sredstva iz EU koja nisu iskorištene
AP1 (Applicant): u 2012. i 2013. osim na ovakvim uvjetima nekakve kozmetičke promjene nekih dijelova zatvora kao što je zatvor u Bjelovaru,
AP1 (Applicant): gdje će se poboljšati kuhnja, gdje će se poboljšati arhiva, ali sam smještaj i sami uvjeti zatvora su ostali isti.
AP1 (Applicant): Jedino što se u svemu tome zadovoljava u takvim zatvorima je 10 kubnih metara, naravno zato jer su to stare zgrade sa 5 metara ili 6 metara visine, kao što je i tamo, ali sve ostalo je ostalo na nivou onoga što smo imali prije 100 godina. To smatramo nedopustivim,
AP1 (Applicant): pogotovo zato jer su i države, među kojima moram priznati i moja, preuzele određene drugčije standarde i smatramo da ispod tih standarda više se ne može ići. Da tih 4 metara, kao koje je konstatirao i ulaženi sudac, je minimalni dio koji se mora zadovoljiti
AP1 (Applicant): da bi ljudi koji su na žalost u takvim uvjetima završili imali kakve takve ljudske uvjete za boravak u tom zatvoru.
AP1 (Applicant): Nažalost, ja sam već prije napomenuo i sad još ponovno ističem da je Ustavni sud u svojom izvješću govorio i to je decidirao naveo ne ljudske uvjete zatvora u, ne samo Bjelovaru, nego općenito tih zatvora u koje se kontinuirano smještaju ljudi umjesto u kaznjonice koji su predviđeni za boravak takvih zatvorenika jer se tamo može raditi, tamo se može normalno boraviti, održavati određena fizička aktivnost, a u ovakvim pritvorskim uvjetima je to sve skupao nemogućeno.
AP1 (Applicant): Zato smatramo da je ovo u svakom slučaju u cijelosti opravdano obzirom na sve što je utvrđeno tokom ovog postupka.
AP1 (Applicant): Hvala.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I call now Mrs. Stažnik.
GR2 (Government): Esteemed judges of the Grand Chamber, I will answer the questions posed by the Grand Chamber in view of Mrs. Stajnik, if you allow.
GR2 (Government): Firstly, I would like to address the questions number one and number three.
GR2 (Government): These questions are very similar, so I will answer them simultaneously.
GR2 (Government): Now, as for the applicant's own situation, as for his freedom of movement, the government would like to stress that he had two hours of daily activity in the open.
GR2 (Government): Additionally, he had additional three hours of activity in the out in the indoor when the doors of his cell were opened.
GR2 (Government): This means that he could move freely inside the prison building and engage in daily activities such as socializing, social games, watching TV, anything he wished or desired to do.
GR2 (Government): This means that he was not kept in his cell during the 21 hours, as stressed by the applicant and on some other different occasions.
GR2 (Government): This means that he could move freely during five hours at minimum.
GR2 (Government): Also, it is important for you to understand that he was not kept in his cell without any purpose during the day.
GR2 (Government): He was engaged in numerous daily activities.
GR2 (Government): Besides the mentioned five hours, he also received visits.
GR2 (Government): He also had interviews with prison staff.
GR2 (Government): He also received his lawyer.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, he was never kept in his cell without any purpose whatsoever.
GR2 (Government): He was always engaged in some sort of activity.
GR2 (Government): Also, as regards the freedom of movement on the yard of the prison, it is important for you to understand that this courtyard has the surface of 305 square meters.
GR2 (Government): The prison authorities took great care into allowing for each prisoner to have sufficient space to move within the courtyard.
GR2 (Government): This was done by implementing the schedule upon which each prisoner could use the sufficient space and could use sports courtyards and other available activities in the open.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, the effect of overcrowding was never present in the courtyard.
GR2 (Government): There was always sufficient space for a particular inmate, including the applicant.
GR2 (Government): As regards the second question posed by Judge Albuquerque, the government would like to note as follows.
GR2 (Government): It is true that the Croatian law said that four square meters are a minimum.
GR2 (Government): But the Croatian government can defend the flexible approach because of the following.
GR2 (Government): This approach by the court, taken in numerous judgments against Croatia, produced tangible results in Croatia.
GR2 (Government): Today, we are at 84% of the capacity of the prisons.
GR2 (Government): It is precisely because of this flexible approach that we were able to implement measures of two different kinds.
GR2 (Government): Firstly, we were able to implement measures with immediate effect on each inmate, including the applicant.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, each inmate could benefit from those measures, the counterbalancing measures, and therefore, his situation could be eased.
GR2 (Government): At the same time, on a totally different level, the flexible approach allowed the government to have more time to deal with the overcrowding problem in the long run.
GR2 (Government): This means that it could implement different legislative measures, such as the law on probation, to implement different, to increase and to make better the material conditions of the particular prison.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, as already stressed by the government, in 2016, at the beginning of this year, we were at 84%.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, we have experience with overcrowding problem.
GR2 (Government): We cannot say that we solved it for good.
GR2 (Government): But today, the situation is far better than in time when Mr. Muricic was held in the Bialowar prison.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, due to the Croatian experience, we can definitely defend the flexible approach.
GR2 (Government): This is very important for us to say because the flexible approach, again, produced tangible results with respect to Croatia's prison system.
GR2 (Government): Additionally, besides answering the questions posed by the Court, we would also like to make some additional references as regards to the things stated by the applicant.
GR2 (Government): The applicant exposed his situation in his own subjective manner.
GR2 (Government): However, all the applicant has stated today in his oral pleading, all these issues were addressed in detail in written submissions made by the government.
GR2 (Government): The questions of refurbishing, the questions of his everyday life, access to clean water, access to air, the state of the entire building, everything is explained in detail in the government's observations on multiple occasions during these proceedings.
GR2 (Government): With this, I would like to end the government's oral pleading.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Mostovac.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the admissibility and merits in the cases of Gestur Jónsson versus Iceland and Ragnar Halldór Hall versus Iceland.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The applications were lodged with the court on 16 October 2014 under Article 34 of the Convention by two Icelandic nationals, Mr. Gestur Jónsson and Mr. Ragnar
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Halldór Hall.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The applications were allocated to the second section of the court, pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of Court.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The applications were communicated to the government on 2 and 3 March 2016, respectively.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): On 30 October 2018, a chamber of the second section delivered its judgment in the case.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): It declared unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 and 7 of the Convention and that the complaint raised under Article 2 of Protocol Number 7 to the Convention was inadmissible.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): On 25 January 2019, the applicants requested that the cases be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, and the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 6 May 2019.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The respondent government are represented by their agent, Mr. Einar Karl Hallvarðsson,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): and my Mrs. Fanney Rós Þorsteinsdóttir,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): assisted by Mrs. Guðrún Sesselja Arnardóttir
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): and Mrs. María  Thejll's advisors.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The applicants are represented by Mr. Geir Gestsson's counsel
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): and Mrs. Védís Eva Guðmundsdóttir advisor.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The applicants are also present.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I welcome the representatives and the applicants in the name of the court.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I also welcome the delegations of judges from the French Court of Cassation and from the Russian Federation who are on a study visit to the court and a delegation of judges from European Union member states.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Having consulted the agent of the government and the representatives of the applicants, I have determined the order of addresses as follows.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Mr. Geir Gestsson for the applicants will speak first,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): and then Mrs. Fanney Rós Þorsteinsdóttir
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting into Russian has been authorized for the benefit of the group of judges from the Russian Federation attending the hearing.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): This interpretation is organized by the Council of Europe Interpretation Department.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I call Mr. Geir Gestsson.
AP1 (Applicant): it is an honor to address the Grand Chamber here today on behalf of the applicants, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hall.
AP1 (Applicant): From the perspective of the applicants, the main facts of the case may be summarized as follows.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicants were convicted for contempt of court without trial by a court of first instance in Iceland, the Reykjavik District Court.
AP1 (Applicant): They were convicted by a first-instance judge, Sigvaldason, that never met them in person in the context of the case.
AP1 (Applicant): The judge assessed, without meeting them in person, whether they were guilty or innocent.
AP1 (Applicant): The judge also decided on the appropriate sentencing in the case without ever meeting them in person.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicants then appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court of Iceland.
AP1 (Applicant): Those proceedings were the only proceedings available to them domestically.
AP1 (Applicant): They had to litigate in those proceedings from a position of having already been convicted by a court of law.
AP1 (Applicant): And the same applied before the Icelandic Supreme Court.
AP1 (Applicant): They were never offered the chance to appear before that court in person.
AP1 (Applicant): The end result of the domestic litigation as a whole was, therefore, that the applicants were convicted in two separate instances without ever being offered the right to appear before either court in person for the purposes of assessing their guilt or innocence or for the purposes of sentencing.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President and distinguished members of the court,
AP1 (Applicant): the case before the court today gives it the opportunity to clarify its case law on a few key issues.
AP1 (Applicant): First, the requirement of rights under the convention being practical and effective.
AP1 (Applicant): Second, the principle on direct assessment of oral evidence.
AP1 (Applicant): And third, the fundamental right to presumption of innocence.
AP1 (Applicant): For other matters that are not covered in these pleadings, the applicants refer to their written submissions.
AP1 (Applicant): But first, it should be assessed whether the criminal limb of Article 6 of the convention is applicable in the case.
AP1 (Applicant): In its written submissions to the Grand Chamber, the government of Iceland, for the first time, disputes the applicability of the criminal limb of Article 6.
AP1 (Applicant): The government now argues that the Supreme Court did not take any position on the first angle criteria in its judgment and, therefore, that the offense has not been classified as criminal under Icelandic law in the Supreme Court judgment.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicants submit that any fair reading of the Supreme Court judgment in their case will show that this argument of the government is incorrect.
AP1 (Applicant): First, Your Excellencies, the judgment refers to Article 222 of the Icelandic Act on Criminal Procedure.
AP1 (Applicant): That article reads, if there is further punishment pursuant to other laws for offenses subject to the provisions of this chapter, claims to that effect can be made in a separate case, regardless of rulings on procedural fines.
AP1 (Applicant): What this provision means is that if there is, for example, contemptuous behavior in the courtroom that breaches several different laws, that conduct can be subject to criminal punishment, both under Chapter 35 of the Act on Criminal Procedure and also subject to other punishment under other legal provisions, for example, the general penal code in Iceland.
AP1 (Applicant): This wording, further and punishment, therefore shows that contempt of court fines, according to Chapter 35 of the Act on Criminal Procedure, that they are classified as criminal under domestic law.
AP1 (Applicant): Second, the Supreme Court judgment itself also explicitly explained that there were two types of criminal cases under the Act that could be brought for contempt of court.
AP1 (Applicant): First, those cases that are brought by the prosecution and second, those criminal cases initiated by the court themselves, ex proprio motu.
AP1 (Applicant): And the Supreme Court judgment then explained that criminal case defendants should enjoy the same fair trial rights in both types of criminal cases.
AP1 (Applicant): With respect to the government, this could not be much clearer on the offense being classified as criminal under domestic law.