TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): Lui aussi a complètement disparu des radars.
AP1 (Applicant): Voilà ce que je pouvais vous répondre. Merci.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, maître. Now I call Mr. Sejersted, please. You have the floor.
GR1 (Government): Thank you, Mr. President, members of the court.
GR1 (Government): As far as I can see, I received three questions, one from Judge Villanova, one from Judge Ravarini, and one from Judge Spano.
GR1 (Government): Although that was perhaps several questions from Judge Spano.
GR1 (Government): So I will first answer the two first ones, and then I will turn to the more extensive questions posed by Judge Spano.
GR1 (Government): As to the first question, that was, if I got it right, what exactly happened on the 17th of October 2008, when the decision, the first emergency decision, was taken to take the boy into foster care?
GR1 (Government): I have to say to this point that, again, but I've said this so often, that this is not, in the government's view, the most relevant point in time for the court's assessment.
GR1 (Government): This is a part of the background to the case, but almost, I wouldn't say regardless, but even though it might be debatable what happened on the 17th of October 2008, that is not the theme before the court.
GR1 (Government): The theme before the court is the situation in 2012, when the decision was made for adoption.
GR1 (Government): Having said that, of course, we are perfectly willing to discuss what happened in the first phase of the case.
GR1 (Government): And I would, well, I would first and foremost refer the court to the places in the annexes where this is extensively described.
GR1 (Government): If you consult afterwards, appendix 18 to the government's memorial, you will find that that is the first emergency decision.
GR1 (Government): It's in Norwegian, but if you get the translation, you will see from that translation, it's a report of what was considered on the 17th of October.
GR1 (Government): That's the decision.
GR1 (Government): And then you will find the decision by the county social welfare board on the emergency decision, explaining the facts of what happened at that date in appendix 20 to the memorial.
GR1 (Government): And as far as I remember, that's been translated into English.
GR1 (Government): And then you will find the city court judgment on the emergency decision in appendix 23 to the memorial.
GR1 (Government): And again, in these documents, you will find all the details of what actually transpired on the 17th of October.
GR1 (Government): And it's also quite detailed explanation of this in the chamber judgment in paragraphs eight to 13.
GR1 (Government): So I refer you to these documents.
GR1 (Government): I will only say that what happened is that the biological mother was with the child at the family care center.
GR1 (Government): And the family care center is a specialized sort of institution that is provided for mothers or parents with special needs.
GR1 (Government): It's a high degree of public availability for parents to go to these child welfare family centers.
GR1 (Government): And she went there voluntarily.
GR1 (Government): And then after three weeks approximately, she'd wanted to go home.
GR1 (Government): And then the emergency decision was taken to take the boy into emergency foster care.
GR1 (Government): And the reasons as you will find is that the personnel of the family center were deeply alarmed.
GR1 (Government): They were actually alarmed for the life of the boy.
GR1 (Government): And this can be debated 10 years afterwards in this court, but these were the people, and these are people who work every day with parents in special needs.
GR1 (Government): They're not just any psychologist or any child welfare authorities.
GR1 (Government): These are the persons who every day work with people with special needs.
GR1 (Government): And these people concretely were disturbed and afraid, not only for the caretaking abilities of the mother, but indeed for the life of the child.
GR1 (Government): And this you will find explained.
GR1 (Government): So that's the start of the whole process.
GR1 (Government): And we have to, if we are to go into these details, you must start there.
GR1 (Government): But as we say, we do not think this is the most relevant, legally relevant part of the case, as it stands before the case, before the court.
GR1 (Government): Then there was the question on the testimony of the assistant midwife, and that's one of the midwives from this first phase.
GR1 (Government): And I can supplement later if I'm not correct, but if I've understood correctly, this again, this pertains to the first phase of the case, the first judgment, which I'm not the one under review now.
GR1 (Government): But if I remember correctly, I understood the facts of the case correctly, this midwife, she wrote down a written report and that report was included in the case file.
GR1 (Government): So it's been in the case file the whole time.
GR1 (Government): And also in the proceedings on the, I think on several, but at least the proceedings before the high court in 2012, no, 2010, sorry, 2010, the high court on the permanent caretaking decision, then the midwife was a witness.
GR1 (Government): And I refer here to appendix 41, where you will find the Retsbok, the court diary from the case where the name of this midwife.
GR1 (Government): So she was heard by the high court in 2010.
GR1 (Government): And as for the later proceedings in 2011 and 12, which is the one before the court, of course, the applicant had every chance through her.
GR1 (Government): She had professional legal advice.
GR1 (Government): She argued, her lawyer argued the case quite extensively, and she had every opportunity of calling any witness she did.
GR1 (Government): She called a number of witnesses, but not this midwife.
GR1 (Government): So it was not heard by in the second phase of the case.
GR1 (Government): And in our view, that's illogical, because that was no longer the relevant, the legally relevant part of the case, which had moved on to another assessment.
GR1 (Government): So that's the second question.
GR1 (Government): And then I come to the questions from Judge Spano.
GR1 (Government): And there were three questions which were quite detailed, and maybe I didn't catch all the details, but the president assured that we would be able, perhaps to supplement in writing if we have more elaborate answers to some of these questions.
GR1 (Government): But if I understand you correctly, Your Honor, the first question related to the fact that to what extent did the city court in 2012 reflect on the new family situation of the biological mother with a new child?
GR1 (Government): And our answer to that, as I said in my submission, is that this was the starting point of the whole exercise.
GR1 (Government): At that point, she had established a new family.
GR1 (Government): She had a daughter before the case was brought, before the Social Welfare Board, and of course, before the city court judgment.
GR1 (Government): And what they considered was her ability, among other things, they considered the total situation, her caretaking abilities, the vulnerability of the boy, the attachment to the new parents, the lack of attachment to the biological mother, the whole situation.
GR1 (Government): But as for her caretaking abilities, the starting point for the review on which they spent three days was her caretaking abilities in light of the fact that the situation had changed on her personal front, that she had established a new family life.
GR1 (Government): And there were inquiries made into the situation of the new family life, and there were assessment, and there were a number of witnesses heard on this point.
GR1 (Government): And she explained herself.
GR1 (Government): And they came to the conclusion that even if she has caretaking abilities for the daughter in the new family situation, she did not have the adequate understanding of what it would require as regards the boy, not the daughter that she's living with, but the boy who, in the meantime, had become three years old, three and a half years old, and had formed new attachment and had special needs, and what it would require on her part to be able to take back a child under those conditions.
GR1 (Government): And on that point, and that was what they really examined.
GR1 (Government): We may discuss whether this is adequately reasoned in the text of the judgment from the city court.
GR1 (Government): That's annex 4, and you will find it at the bottom of page 8 and on the top of page 9 in the city court judgment, where they explicitly use several paragraphs on this issue.
GR1 (Government): And they start by saying, I will not read everything, and you can read it for yourself.
GR1 (Government): It's in English translation.
GR1 (Government): They start at the bottom of page 8, the first paragraph, by saying, in some areas, the mother's situation has improved during the past year.
GR1 (Government): And then they discuss this.
GR1 (Government): And I will not go into the details, because they are personal, and would disclose details that we should not mention in open court.
GR1 (Government): But if you read it yourself, you will find that this is the discussion.
GR1 (Government): So that's my answer to the first point.
GR1 (Government): The second question was, that was related to paragraph 165 in the memorial, I think, where we, in the memorial, write on page 27 that we used the word with reference to vague descriptions of the first applicant's care for her daughter.
GR1 (Government): Perhaps the word vague is not the most precise.
GR1 (Government): This is a very extensive description.
GR1 (Government): And we used a lot of words, uncertain.
GR1 (Government): The point is that the first applicant's care for the daughter, and now I'm repeating myself, was part of the examination.
GR1 (Government): Witnesses were heard on her relationship to the daughter.
GR1 (Government): They had made inquiries in the home.
GR1 (Government): There had been sort of inspection.
GR1 (Government): There were reports.
GR1 (Government): And these were not vague, but they were uncertain.
GR1 (Government): The conclusion, if you remember, is that they found that, yes, she could take care of her daughter.
GR1 (Government): But it was not absolutely perfect.
GR1 (Government): There were things that the child welfare authorities pointed out that she would need public counselling and assistance with.
GR1 (Government): And perhaps that's what we refer to with the word vague.
GR1 (Government): The main point is, this was examined in detail by the city court.
GR1 (Government): And then we come to the last question, which is the relationship.
GR1 (Government): Then we're on to the points of legal interpretation.
GR1 (Government): And the criteria put forward by the court for assessing situations like this.
GR1 (Government): And when it comes to the best interest of the child.
GR1 (Government): And you are asking a question about the so-called two-pronged approach and the relationship between the first prong and the second prong.
GR1 (Government): To this, I would first say that these criteria are criteria established by this court.
GR1 (Government): The only thing that Article 8 says is that there should be protection of private and family life, and there may be exemptions.
GR1 (Government): So the more detailed and elaborate criteria that the court may develop, are developed by the court.
GR1 (Government): They are evolving in this area, I would say.
GR1 (Government): The principle of the best interest of the child is still evolving into the interpretation of Article 8.
GR1 (Government): The realignment of Article 8 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is very important, is still an evolving area of law.
GR1 (Government): So I would urge the court to, if you find anything, I'm almost tempted to take the question back to the court and say, if you find anything that you are unsure about, about the two-pronged approach, then you can reinterpret or reaffirm or clarify it.
GR1 (Government): The first prong is the biological presumption, but with the immediate addition that, unless the biological parents is particularly unfit.
GR1 (Government): And the second prong is that anyway, the child has the right to a sound environment.
GR1 (Government): It's simple.
GR1 (Government): But we would say that in addition, in effect, what the court has done in a couple of recent cases, including the case of Hassan versus Norway this year, is that they have added this point, which I made, about the considerable period of time.
GR1 (Government): So the considerable period of time, when a considerable period of time has passed, and in this case, three and a half years is a considerable period of time, then the de facto situation may change and the de facto situation may change.
GR1 (Government): And the de facto situation has prevailed.
GR1 (Government): We really see the considerable period of time as the third prong.
GR1 (Government): But all of this is just the total situation.
GR1 (Government): I mean, what you really have to look at is the total situation.
GR1 (Government): And in the total situation, the prevailing overriding paramount interest is the best interest of the child.
GR1 (Government): This is as far as I can go now, but perhaps we will try to clarify this a bit more in writing if we have the permission.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, if I have your permission,
GR1 (Government): I would like to make one final point before I conclude.
GR1 (Government): When child welfare cases are brought before this court, they are almost always cases in which the national authorities have intervened in the biological family, and this intervention is analyzed and reviewed under Article 8.
GR1 (Government): And these are important cases.
GR1 (Government): But we must not forget that at the national level, the biggest challenge with child welfare in Norway as in, I would probably think, all European countries, is not that the authorities intervene too often.
GR1 (Government): It is that they intervene too seldom, with the result that children suffer serious neglect and long-term damages that could have been avoided given more resources and expertise.
GR1 (Government): And we should not forget that this may also be a violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, both under Article 8 and sometimes, even though not in this case, under Article 3.
GR1 (Government): And that's the perspective that the national child welfare authorities and the national courts work under.
GR1 (Government): They go into these cases, and they have the protection of the best interest of a child as the paramount principle.
GR1 (Government): This is what they do, and this explains why the national judgment looks like they do.
GR1 (Government): And for this reason, we would strongly urge the Grand Chamber to be very careful in cases like this, how you formulate your criteria, both as regards to final conclusions, but also the premises that you send, so that you do not raise the threshold too high for legitimate intervention, and so that you do not create a chilling effect, which would in practice mean that the welfare authorities were afraid to intervene in cases where they absolutely should intervene.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mr. Seersted.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I thank both parties who have assisted the Court with their submissions and answers to the Court's questions.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Je déclare ouverte l'audience publique sur le fonds de l'affaire X et autres contre Bulgarie.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): L'affaire a été introduite devant la Cour le 16 avril 2016 par cinq ressortissants italiens, un couple et leurs trois enfants mineurs en vertu de l'article 34 de la Convention.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Elle a été attribuée à la cinquième section de la Cour conformément à l'article 52, paragraphe 1 du règlement de la Cour.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Le 5 septembre 2016, la requête a été communiquée au gouvernement sous l'angle des articles 3 et 8 de la Convention en ce qui concerne les grèves soulevées par les trois enfants.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Les grèves formulées par les parents ont leur nom propre ont été déclarées irrecevables en application de l'article 54, paragraphe 3 du règlement.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Le 17 janvier 2019, une chambre de la cinquième section a rendu un arrêt par lequel elle a déclaré le restant de la requête recevable et a conclu à l'unanimité à la non-violation des articles 3 et 8 de la Convention.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Le 12 avril 2019, les requérants ont demandé le renvoi de l'affaire devant la Grande Chambre conformément à l'article 43 de la Convention et cette demande a été acceptée par le Collège de la Grande Chambre le 24 juin 2019.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Le gouvernement est représenté par ses agentes, Mme Raya Nikolova et Mme Iva Stancheva-Chinova, assistée de Mme Ivana Sotirova, conseillère.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Les requérants sont représentés par M. Francesco Mauceri, avocat, assisté du Dr.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Rose Galante et du Dr.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Patricia Sarah Bach, conseillère.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Je salue les comparants au nom de la Cour.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Ayant consulté les agentes du gouvernement et le représentant des requérants, j'ai fixé ainsi l'ordre de parole.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Nous entendrons successivement M. Mauceri pour les requérants, puis Mme Nikolova et
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Mme Stancheva-Chinova pour le gouvernement.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): La parole est à M. Mauceri, M., vous avez la Parole
AP3 (Applicant): Thank you, Mr. President.
AP3 (Applicant): Thank you to every member of the Court for offering this hearing and demonstrating its high degree of civic mindedness, sensitivity, and solidarity.
AP3 (Applicant): These values and feelings constitute a subject of the controversy and of responsibility of a Bulgarian state.
AP3 (Applicant): But I want to say also at once that on this painful path we have also met a beautiful face of Bulgaria, full of solidarity, love, and respect.
AP3 (Applicant): This Bulgarian nation we consider our ally and not adversary.
AP3 (Applicant): Many voices have risen in Bulgaria in defense of the crime and minors.
AP3 (Applicant): For example, I think about Stefan Stoyanov, a human rights expert operating with international organization Save the Children.
AP3 (Applicant): I think about the lawyer, Mr. Markovsky,
AP3 (Applicant): who worked about and is one of the best accredited crime experts in Bulgaria.
AP3 (Applicant): With them we feel near vast majority of Bulgarian people.
AP3 (Applicant): And I hope Bulgarian state will align to them.
AP3 (Applicant): Now it's not possible to summarize all the arguments and evidence that demonstrates of the state Bulgaria did not fulfill the duty they had to protect the applicants while they were guests of one Bulgarian orphanage and let them undergo an organized and constant system of violence, abuse, and torture together with the other children.
AP3 (Applicant): I must refer to the acts and to the many documents that we offered to the court.
AP3 (Applicant): And now I will summarize what the time will permit.
AP3 (Applicant): We have many, many evidence of the fact of the tortures in human and denigrating treatments suffered by the claimants who were housed in the orphanage.
AP3 (Applicant): I believe that any discussion must start from consideration of those tortures.
AP3 (Applicant): In the investigative reports of European journalist Fabrizio Gatti, reporting the acts of violence and abuse about which we speak, we read, it is horrible and gruesome just to imagine all this, but we have to read and to consider the silence of those in Bulgaria turning their backs on the courage of the three children.
AP3 (Applicant): For most, those tortures and the criminal organizations operating as ---- are described with clear precision and shocking drama in the detailed reports of the narratives told by the children.
AP3 (Applicant): There are video recording and minor hearing reports carefully prepared and checked by Italian juvenile courts with the help of highly qualified experts.
AP3 (Applicant): Italian judicial authority acquired and we produced concordant and multiple expert reports provided regarding the narratives of claimant children narratives.
AP3 (Applicant): According to specifically highly and experienced experts, Italian juvenile court, which the provision used on 13 May 2014, clarified the truthfulness of the children narratives and therefore explicated the serious transgressions of the responsible Bulgarian authorities.
AP3 (Applicant): We also have evidence about other similar cases in the same orphanages and also in others.
AP3 (Applicant): Also Bulgarian media refer many.
AP3 (Applicant): On 4 January 2013, seven days before the publication of the report on magazine L'Espresso, an orphan, his name begin by N, N.R., I will call him, in an interview published in various
AP3 (Applicant): Bulgarian media, he was coming from ---- orphanage and he denounced to the acts of violence and abuses suffered at ---- orphanage.
AP3 (Applicant): He said all the narratives about what is happening in the orphanages are true and there is nothing exaggerated, sexist, rotund, from the earliest childhood.
AP3 (Applicant): This interview was annexed, including several other documents, in request for questioning set by Italian Ministry of Justice to the Bulgarian counterpart in June 2016.
AP3 (Applicant): The Bulgarian government, at the request of the court, provided the request of Italia.
AP3 (Applicant): Who knows, who knows how many other dramatic events remain lost in oblivion.
AP3 (Applicant): Buried in the silence that in most cases fall on the victims in an attempt to take refuge from the terror and the horror they have been suffering.
AP3 (Applicant): He also complains, many complaints from other parents, ignorant from Bulgaria State.
AP3 (Applicant): Bulgaria archived there, ignorant also the precise and detailed complaints coming directly from the Vice President of Italian International Adoption Commissions, as we have reported in detail in our observation.
AP3 (Applicant): There are also the investigations from Italian and European journalists.
AP3 (Applicant): For example, Rai TV reports, Presa Diretta, we produced also it.
AP3 (Applicant): And the investigation conducted in Bulgaria by Fabrizio Gatti, published on L'Espresso, the most prestigious weekly magazine in Italy, Fabrizio Gatti is well known for his undercover and very dangerous investigations about criminal organization.
AP3 (Applicant): He cares about mafia, drug trafficking, immigrants' exploitation.
AP3 (Applicant): He found this case the most dangerous he has seen in his life.
AP3 (Applicant): Thank you, Mr. Gatti.
AP3 (Applicant): Great work in favor of the climate minors, of all the minors, and of human droids.
AP3 (Applicant): We have professional reports coming from expert Italian psychologists and accredited relational therapy center in Italy.
AP3 (Applicant): This is advanced institutions, in particular in person of Mrs.
AP3 (Applicant): Rose Galante, who is near to me, that has charge of the children since they arrived in Italy, and also now she cares about them, using all the best scientific instruments and the state of the art techniques.
AP3 (Applicant): The videotaped hearings were acquired and careful with most experienced and carefully were examinated by the Italian judicial authority.
AP3 (Applicant): Judicial authority was helped by specializated judicial police, the scientific police, and other public pursuers then proceeded to carry out new hearings, also videotaped and examined in cooperation with scientific police.