TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR2 (Government): I would like to mention it with emphasis.
GR2 (Government): I mean, there are declarations made by the governments where they emphasize that they apply the system of protection fully respecting the principle that is at the heart of the system of the European Convention of Human Rights, and that reciprocity does not apply in matters of protection of human rights.
GR2 (Government): So I would like once again to emphasize that the Lausanne Treaty, which guarantees together with full equality before the law and equal treatment, also guarantees special minority rights, educational, linguistic, etc.,
GR2 (Government): and these rights go beyond the general rights guaranteed by human rights conventions.
GR2 (Government): So it is clear that no reciprocity is implemented, despite the fact that explicitly Article 45 refers to such a reciprocity.
GR2 (Government): Mr. President, I don't know if there are still more questions to which we haven't answered,
GR2 (Government): but this is actually the submission of the Greek government regarding the questions posed earlier.
GR2 (Government): Thank you very much.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mrs. Telalian.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Now for the applicant, I don't know whether Professor Tselikis or, No Mr. Ktistakis, please.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, distinguished members of the court, this is the original of the decision
AP1 (Applicant): delivered by the Mufti in phrase.
AP1 (Applicant): There are more than 4,000 decisions of one page in all Ottoman language.
AP1 (Applicant): Is this a leak of certainty?
AP1 (Applicant): Is any forcibility of the law for the people, for the Muslim people in Greece?
AP1 (Applicant): No.
AP1 (Applicant): The husband of the applicant decides not to submit his testimony in this situation.
AP1 (Applicant): And that's why he decides to go to the public notary, who, yes, is a public servant, he's a jurist and he's controlled by the local prosecutor, and prepare his testimony in order to guarantee the legal certainty of the Greek civil law and the forcibility of the Greek civil law, to avoid a situation like this.
AP1 (Applicant): Then the First Distance Court and the Court of Appeal in phrase, they accept that this testimony was valid.
AP1 (Applicant): Because there are thousands of this testimony from Muslim people in the same area, Greek Muslim citizens, because they wanted to avoid a situation like this for their families, the members of their families and their heirs.
AP1 (Applicant): Finally, the Court of Cassation quashed twice this judgment of the Court of Appeal.
AP1 (Applicant): And there is one more case after the last court decision of 2017, and I'm answering to the question of Mr. Sisylianos, which is the last six months, and we have already submitted
AP1 (Applicant): to our observation, in another case, where again the Court of Cassation accepted the validity of the Treaty of Athens.
AP1 (Applicant): This is the situation, and the notary, of course, informed the member of the minority, the husband of the applicant, about the situation, but there were thousands, as my colleague will explain to you, thousands of testimony, public testimony, because the member of minority wanted to avoid this situation with the Mufti.
AP1 (Applicant): Then the legal, the question about the legal expectation of the sisters of the testator.
AP1 (Applicant): And yes, according to our documents, which have been already submitted with our application initially to the Secretariat, the sisters of the husband of the applicant, a few years before, they accepted when their brother, another brother passed away, they accepted the inheritance according to civil law.
AP1 (Applicant): They didn't object to the inheritance from their parents, but they object for the inheritance — for their inheritance rights of their brother, the husband of the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): And they didn't have legal expectation, and they have never exercised vis-à-vis their parents the same objection like they did in this case.
AP1 (Applicant): Because it was the wife of their brother that they were objecting.
AP1 (Applicant): And this has a difference, as my colleague will explain to you, because the shares are different.
AP1 (Applicant): Finally, of course there is an issue of negative freedom of religion, and that's why our ground about discrimination is based on religion.
AP1 (Applicant): And my last remark about the Lausanne Treaty and the minority situation in Turkey.
AP1 (Applicant): Since 1927, since 1927, the Turkish authorities have abolished the Byzantine civil family inheritance law for the Greek Orthodox minority of Turkey.
AP1 (Applicant): And there were no problem, no contestation from the part of Greece.
AP1 (Applicant): Only Greece still applies Sharia law.
AP1 (Applicant): On the basis of Treaty of Lausanne, as the respondent just explained to the court, applies Sharia for the members of the Muslim minority protected by the Treaty of Lausanne.
AP1 (Applicant): The minorities in Turkey have abolished this right, if there is such a right, since 1927 with the introduction of the Turkish civil code in the Turkish legal order.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr President, distinguished members of the court, now I pass the floor to my colleague.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, distinguished member of the court,
AP2 (Applicant): I will finish with the last questions remaining to be answered.
AP2 (Applicant): So about the mulk, the mulk is a category of Islamic property.
AP2 (Applicant): When Sharia is applicable.
AP2 (Applicant): So properties in Greece, when Greek citizens, Muslims, want to apply Sharia inheritance law, then they can call the properties mulk because there are two more categories, or vakuf, of community properties or public properties.
AP2 (Applicant): So according to Sharia law, there are some special rules about the mulk or the other.
AP2 (Applicant): The argument by the government is the reverse.
AP2 (Applicant): And the court of cassation, that because it was a mulk, this has to be Sharia's applicable law, which is not correct.
AP2 (Applicant): So the testator was a Greek citizen who decided to draft a public will.
AP2 (Applicant): So he wanted to be seen as a Muslim.
AP2 (Applicant): So his property is not a mulk because the Sharia law wouldn't be applicable in that case, according to his wish.
AP2 (Applicant): But according to the Greek court of cassation, the property was seen as a mulk, which is a bit peculiar.
AP2 (Applicant): So what happens if the reverse was?
AP2 (Applicant): We have a case that, let's say, the wife dies.
AP2 (Applicant): So according to Sharia law, and I can quote the Holy Quran, is according to Surah Nisa, paragraph 12, the lot for men is double.
AP2 (Applicant): So it gets the half of the property.
AP2 (Applicant): And the most important question, I think, is, again, that if the applicant was not a Muslim, the court, the Sharia law, wouldn't be applicable.
AP2 (Applicant): Because the Sunnah says that an inherited property from a Muslim cannot go to the hands of a non-Muslim.
AP2 (Applicant): So it's clear that we wouldn't have this case if the applicant was not a Muslim.
AP2 (Applicant): So as a Muslim woman, as a Muslim wife, that's why we have two different standards.
AP2 (Applicant): Just first, because she was a Muslim, and second, because she was a wife.
AP2 (Applicant): And here, the important question about the proportionality, we have a disproportionate measure.
AP2 (Applicant): So the measure, first of all, is that we have to compare the interstate succession versus a public will.
AP2 (Applicant): So here, the most important element, the crucial element, is the wish of the testator.
AP2 (Applicant): So the whole case is about the court of cassation decided against the wish of the testator to replace the civil law regarding a public will with the Sharia law on interstate succession.
AP2 (Applicant): So we have an absolutely disproportionate system.
AP2 (Applicant): But the most important here is that, again, we have a disproportionality as regards the free will of someone, the testator, versus an obligation which is not existent.
AP2 (Applicant): So we're talking about the right of someone to choose or to opt for Sharia law.
AP2 (Applicant): And here, the court of cassation applies mandatorily the Sharia law without the wish.
AP2 (Applicant): So it's clear to our eyes the disproportion between the two systems.
AP2 (Applicant): I think that the question of the interstate succession I think this will have completed our remarks.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Professor, we have now come to the end of the hearing.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The court will now deliberate on the admissibility and merits.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The judgments will be delivered later.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Good morning, please be seated.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I wish to begin by thanking the applicant and the respondent government for their cooperation in preparing this hearing on the merits in the case of Savran versus Denmark, which I now declare open.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): It will be available to the public on the court's website tomorrow, Thursday, June 25.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The present application was lodged with the court on 16 November 2015 under Article 34 of the convention by a Turkish national, Mr. Arif Savran.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): It was allocated to the fourth section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, paragraph 1 of the rules of court and was communicated to the government on 20 June 2017.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): On 1st October 2019, a chamber of the fourth section delivered its judgment.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): It declared the application admissible and held by four votes to three that the applicant's expulsion to Turkey would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the convention and that it was not necessary to examine his complaint under Article 8.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): On 12 December 2019, the government requested that the case 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 27 January 2020.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Leave to intervene under Article 36, paragraph 2 of the convention and Rule 44, 3 of the rules of court was granted to the governments of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, and to Amnesty International and the Center of Research and Studies of Fundamental Rights of the Paris-Nanterre University.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The government of Turkey did not avail themselves of their right to intervene under Article 36, paragraph 1 of the convention.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): At this hearing, the respondent government are represented by their agent, Mr. Michael Braad, and their co-agent, Ms. Nina Holst-Christensen.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): They are assisted by Ms. Lisbeth Kunnerup, Ms. Anna-Sophie Saugmann-Jensen, Ms. Øzlem Akar, Mr. Christian Wegener, Ms. Sara Sarah Larsen, Ms.  Cathrine Engsig Sørensen, Ms. Maria Korsgård  Thomsen, Ms. Sofie  Bach Andersen, advisors.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Tyge Trier, counsel, and Mr. Anders Boelskifte, co-counsel.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): They are assisted by Ms. Sabrine Hussain and Ms. Thea Husum, advisors.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Having consulted the agent of the government and the representatives of the applicant, I have determined the order of addresses as follows.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Mr. Trier for the applicant will speak first,
Robert Spano (JudgeP): and then Mr. Braad for the government.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I call Mr. Trier, you have the floor, please.
AP1 (Applicant): Thank you, Mr. President, distinguished judges.
AP1 (Applicant): I'll start by mentioning a core element that the Supreme Court convicted our client to psychiatric treatment and ruled that Mr. Savran was mentally insane
AP1 (Applicant): at the time of the crime.
AP1 (Applicant): I will also stress that he has been in closed hospital from 6 May 2008 until 23 June 2015, more than seven years and one month in a psychiatric hospital.
AP1 (Applicant): I refer to the detailed description of the treatment of Mr. Savran as an inpatient at the St. John
AP1 (Applicant): Hospital, and I refer to the important role of his guardian.
AP1 (Applicant): I also will mention that he has low intellectual level, is dependent on follow-up, and he has to ensure that he gets continuous treatment, and he gets regular visits with his family while he's in treatment in the hospital in Denmark.
AP1 (Applicant): Here in the beginning, I also state that the chief physicians said that an essential element of his treatment is monitoring and follow-up by qualified staff.
AP1 (Applicant): Severe mental suffering, as in this case, can be interpreted in the category exceptional cases.
AP1 (Applicant): This has to be done by the court on a case-by-case review, but it also has to take into account the potential consequences of a removal of a patient.
AP1 (Applicant): This can constitute a real risk of being exposed to serious, rapid, and even irreversible decline in his state of health.
AP1 (Applicant): Article 3 protects against the risk of significant deterioration or worsening of the threshold established in Papua New Guinea.
AP1 (Applicant): I argue today that the significant worsening for Mr. Saverin established a clear risk
AP1 (Applicant): of inhuman, degrading treatment.
AP1 (Applicant): Regarding our client, I refer to the forensic psychiatric reports from St. John.
AP1 (Applicant): They describe the consequences of an abruption of his treatment and the consequences of his mental health.
AP1 (Applicant): The reports also state the different components of his treatment.
AP1 (Applicant): Strong medication with prescriptions that require a close follow-up and attention to possible side effects in weekly or monthly blood samples.
AP1 (Applicant): It also involves family and social relations to support him and to hold the structure and the frames.
AP1 (Applicant): It includes a contact person to motivate that he follows treatment and takes his medication to keep him away from the environment and the drug abuse that can cause a relapse for him.
AP1 (Applicant): And also to pay attention to any side effects of the medication that he cannot see and he cannot react to on his own.
AP1 (Applicant): I stress today, Mr. President, that the treatment and care
AP1 (Applicant): at the St. John Hospital consisted
AP1 (Applicant): of medical treatment, psychiatric nursing care, conversation therapy, environment therapy, physical training, occupational activities, including physical work that he did in the garden of the hospital.
AP1 (Applicant): All of this to secure to him that he had structure and frames and motivation which was necessary for treatment.
AP1 (Applicant): I stress that St. John is a leading psychiatric hospital.
AP1 (Applicant): It is owned by the Danish government and it employs a staff of 600 persons.
AP1 (Applicant): I refer to the description in the annexes, especially our annex 8 to the Grand Chamber.
AP1 (Applicant): The complaint today is based on the de facto lack of the necessary and required treatment for his mental illness.
AP1 (Applicant): To prevent a relapse, supervision by a regular contact person is essential, such as the existence of a family and social network, as we see in the statement from the chief physicians.
AP1 (Applicant): The appropriate care should be available in practice and not merely in general.
AP1 (Applicant): I know today that Savran has not had any access to a psychiatrist since his arrival in Turkey five years ago.
AP1 (Applicant): The few times he has seen a doctor, it has been a somatic treating doctor, and sometimes no doctor, only a nurse or a secretary in the hospital in Konya.
AP1 (Applicant): Although psychiatric treatment is available in general in Turkey, a follow up and control scheme by means of a regular contact person is essential for his treatment.
AP1 (Applicant): I refer to the forensic psychiatric reports from the chief physicians, which were provided at an official request of the state prosecutor in Copenhagen.
AP1 (Applicant): These reports, which the court indeed is familiar with, cannot leave any doubt as to the professionalism, the expertise, or the validity of the diagnosis given by the chief physician Lubincin.
AP1 (Applicant): His statement is fully consistent with the detailed reports by two other chief physicians at the hospital.
AP1 (Applicant): I note here that my client was in hospital full time, 24-7, at the hospital for more than four years.
AP1 (Applicant): March 11 to June 15.
AP1 (Applicant): Highly qualified specialized staff followed him around the clock.
AP1 (Applicant): The declaration by Lubincin is fully supported by his testimony under oath in court, both in October 14 and January 15.
AP1 (Applicant): And it is fully supported by the detailed medical statements by Adam Ikova in April 13 and Hauge Massen in July 13.
AP1 (Applicant): I stress, Mr. President, that the medical documentation
AP1 (Applicant): in this case is very clear, very strong, and very solid.
AP1 (Applicant): It's from the most senior medical expertise, and it's an internationally recognized specialized hospital in Denmark.
AP1 (Applicant): I'll find it quite surprising if anyone can dispute the professionalism by these three very senior doctors and the qualities of their certificates.
AP1 (Applicant): I saw that Germany talked about in their statement to the court a qualified medical certificate.
AP1 (Applicant): And I stressed before the court today that these certificates are exactly the qualified medical certificate that Germany relies on.
AP1 (Applicant): The city court did fully correctly and in full compliance with the jurisprudence of the court, not based their decision merely on availability of medicine and treatment in general in Turkey, but made in accordance with what is required by Article 3, an assessment of the de facto availability for SAVRAN in Turkey.
AP1 (Applicant): I also note that the Danish authorities had three months from the city court's decision to secure a real possibility of receiving relevant treatment in Turkey.
AP1 (Applicant): But the authorities did nothing in the three months.
AP1 (Applicant): I emphasize the severity of his mental illness, which is described in the written statements.
AP1 (Applicant): It is indeed a very serious illness, and it's officially recognized internationally via specific diagnostics, including by the World Health Organization.
AP1 (Applicant): It's also medically well-established that this specific mental illness can be of such a severe degree that inadequate treatment can result in serious, rapid, and irreversible decline of the health.
AP1 (Applicant): This turns to intense suffering, or it results in significant reduction in the life expectancy, and it poses a threat to the patient's own safety and the safety of others.
AP1 (Applicant): The consultant psychiatrist clearly described the importance and the crucial effect of not only medicine, but also other components of his treatment, the regular contact person, the supervision, the ongoing follow-up to prevent relapses for Mr. SAVRAN.
AP1 (Applicant): I will stress today that after seven years in psychiatric intensive care from May 2008 and until 2015, more than seven years, his health did not at any time reach the level of independence from medicine so he could be transferred to an outpatient category not one single day was Mr. SAVRAN outside the 24-7
AP1 (Applicant): at the hospital.
AP1 (Applicant): I find that the High Court in Copenhagen made an error by stating that he understands his medicine, and then he could get it in Turkey.
AP1 (Applicant): I stressed he did not have the mental capacity to ensure treatment for himself, and he did de facto not have access to treatment in Turkey.
AP1 (Applicant): From this, I then go on to the case law of the court, and I'll have to be brief on the quotations.
AP1 (Applicant): But I start with Tarakel, and I stress that the principles of Tarakel are very relevant in SAVRAN's case. I stress the absence
AP1 (Applicant): of appropriate psychiatric treatment would worsen his symptoms and increase the risk of aggressive behavior.
AP1 (Applicant): And I note that the Danish authority failed to secure assurances from Turkey prior to the removal of SAVRAN in June 2015.
AP1 (Applicant): I refer to paragraph 121 in Tarakel, which requires a detailed and reliable information concerning the specific facility.
AP1 (Applicant): It is essential that this was obtained.
AP1 (Applicant): This was not obtained by the Danish authorities.
AP1 (Applicant): And I note that the MedCorp report in the case only talks about medication in general terms.
AP1 (Applicant): The call today, Mr. President, is that Denmark failed
AP1 (Applicant): to get sufficient assurances before returning him to Turkey.
AP1 (Applicant): They failed to secure that he would be taken care of in a manner adapted to his specific health and mental illness.
AP1 (Applicant): I have today to put a few remarks to the MedCorp report.
AP1 (Applicant): I have it here in front of me. It's annex 4 to the court.
AP1 (Applicant): This is an older statement.
AP1 (Applicant): This is about a female from Belgium.
AP1 (Applicant): This is a woman who does not suffer from paranoid schizophrenia.
AP1 (Applicant): She has other less serious mental issues.
AP1 (Applicant): I also highlight that the patient was not medicated with respidil.
AP1 (Applicant): The patient was not medicated with Leponix.
AP1 (Applicant): So it's a totally different or very different Belgian female case, which is the basis for the decision in Denmark.
AP1 (Applicant): I also note from the MedCorp that Turkey has the lowest rate of psychiatrists inside all of the European countries.
AP1 (Applicant): And this further supports that the MedCorp statement is not sufficient.
AP1 (Applicant): It was not about Mr. Savran.
AP1 (Applicant): It was about another person.
AP1 (Applicant): The call of Tarkel is that Denmark should have secured individual guarantees from Turkey.
AP1 (Applicant): They didn't.
AP1 (Applicant): I move on to Tatar, another Switzerland case.
AP1 (Applicant): Here the court says that suffering associated with relapse and the possibility of self-harm could in principle fall within the scope of Article 3.
AP1 (Applicant): The court in Tatar emphasized that Switzerland committed to make every effort to secure he would not have a pause in his treatment, and he would have access to medical care he needs in Turkey.
AP1 (Applicant): This is particularly relevant for my client, and it is obvious that the assurances from Tatar was not given.
AP1 (Applicant): I go to Papusvili.
AP1 (Applicant): It is clearly established in that case, and I don't need to spend so much time on it, but the core of Papusvili is that it's de facto accessibility of treatment, and it's to consider the particular vulnerability of the person.
AP1 (Applicant): This is the core of the case today.
AP1 (Applicant): The burden of proof in Papusvili is to secure the government to secure the existence of real and practical access.
AP1 (Applicant): The court says in Papusvili that the authorities has greater investigative resources, and this is exactly the situation here.
AP1 (Applicant): And in Papusvili, the court also says that access to medical care cannot be theoretical, but must be real and guaranteed.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, in this case, the burden of proof does not lie with Mr. Sabran when
AP1 (Applicant): he has presented prima facie evidence in the form of the many forensic declarations.
AP1 (Applicant): It's for the government to demonstrate that there are indeed resources available.
AP1 (Applicant): It's for the government to dispel the doubts, as the court says in Papusvili, but the high court in Denmark failed to do so.
AP1 (Applicant): I go to Aswad from 2013.
AP1 (Applicant): I find it very important that the court seven years ago stated that deterioration of a person's mental health is capable of reaching the Article III threshold.
AP1 (Applicant): In Aswad, the court refers to current medical evidence, and Aswad is also suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.