TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP3 (Applicant): In any case, and regardless whether or not your court would consider the interference concern as prescribed by domestic law, the applicant requests that your court would take into consideration the government's said actions, also by asking itself whether the government said whether the applicant's treatment has been necessary in a democratic society.
AP3 (Applicant): I will ask my colleague Mr. Salogangas to continue next
AP3 (Applicant): on this theme.
AP3 (Applicant): Thank you.
AP1 (Applicant): now I would like to move to the third stage of the certification assessment as to whether the action was necessary in a democratic society.
AP1 (Applicant): The Chamber has noted that a separate area was reserved for the representatives of the media so they could freely and safely cover the event in question.
AP1 (Applicant): However, this claim is dismantled for following reasons.
AP1 (Applicant): First of all, reasoning of the majority of the Chamber should be rejected.
AP1 (Applicant): It is not up to the government to decide the viewpoint of a journalist's story or the angle of close-up photograph.
AP1 (Applicant): This kind of reasoning would allow pre-censorship in member states of the Convention if use of the area is obligatory.
AP1 (Applicant): Such media areas would be always established in conflict zones where violence clashes might occur.
AP1 (Applicant): As judges have stated in their dissenting opinion, the area should have been optional for use.
AP1 (Applicant): The government has clarified in their written submission that the media area was actually in the Pasikivi Square.
AP1 (Applicant): After the government's written submission to the Grand Chamber, it is now the first time that the journalist and the applicant have been made aware of the media area.
AP1 (Applicant): The Union of Journalists in Finland contacted all the main media houses and asked if anyone had been in the area.
AP1 (Applicant): Many journalists who were on the scene responded to the request of the Union.
AP1 (Applicant): Their message was clear.
AP1 (Applicant): Nobody was in the claimed area, and nobody even knew about it.
AP1 (Applicant): This is confirmed by many journalists, for example, those representing the newspaper with the biggest circulation in the Nordic region, Helsinki-Sanomat, and by those representing the Finnish National Broadcasting Company, which is comparable to the BBC.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, every journalist who was at the scene told that at no time they were actually instructed to enter the claimed media area.
AP1 (Applicant): If the area was formed, why didn't the police try to instruct the applicant or any other journalist to enter it?
AP1 (Applicant): The Pasikivi Square is about 100 meters away from the coordinate area.
AP1 (Applicant): The government has asserted for the first time that the visibility to the Kiasma Square was partly blocked from time to time.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the visibility from this area was not only partly blocked, but completely, by police buses, minibuses, and multilayered police lines, as the videos and pictures show.
AP1 (Applicant): As judges have noted in their dissenting opinion, photo journalists could not mingle with the demonstrators in order to get a better understanding of events and obtain statements from the participants or take close-up photos.
AP1 (Applicant): In this context, one must bear in mind that the peaceful demonstrators should have a right to express their opinions.
AP1 (Applicant): The media's role is to gather and impart those opinions to the public.
AP1 (Applicant): The government has clarified in the submission that this area contained a senior officer from the Helsinki Police District's Public Relations Unit, who was present to answer any questions media representatives might have had, as well as to give interviews on the events that unfolded during the day.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the media cannot work as a watchdog of the government if a journalist is able to make interviews only given by the authorities.
AP1 (Applicant): It cannot be adequate if only authorities can present their view of the events to the media.
AP1 (Applicant): As the government has described in their written submission, the police used so-called paint-and-chain methods and did not let anyone enter or go outside the cordon.
AP1 (Applicant): During the event, the policemen actively compressed the cordon so that it contained a smaller area.
AP1 (Applicant): Only for the first half an hour of the demonstration could the journalists move freely in the area.
AP1 (Applicant): The chamber has made an unsubstantiated finding that it was not clear to the government that the applicant was a journalist.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was given an order to disperse around 9 o'clock.
AP1 (Applicant): However, he informed the police that he was a journalist after which he was left alone, according to the merits of the district court of Helsinki.
AP1 (Applicant): After that, he made a call to his employer to ask whether he should stay or leave the area.
AP1 (Applicant): This is a standard procedure since the employer has duties such as taking care of the occupational safety of an employee.
AP1 (Applicant): The Finnish Occupational Safety and Health Act requires that the employee should make the employer aware of the security risks.
AP1 (Applicant): After a phone call with the employer, it was clear that the applicant should remain at the scene to be a public watchdog of the government and to impart information to the public.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was apprehended after he heard the command, detained a photographer.
AP1 (Applicant): The police officer who apprehended him has given a statement in the preliminary investigation.
AP1 (Applicant): I would like to endorse that the statement is based on a most recent hearing after the event where he had official responsibility by the criminal law to be truthful.
AP1 (Applicant): I'll quote the statement for you.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was in process of taking photographs within the cordon.
AP1 (Applicant): I apprehended him according to orders.
AP1 (Applicant): He did not resist in any way.
AP1 (Applicant): He asked why he was being arrested to which I replied that this was not an arrest but an apprehension.
AP1 (Applicant): He asked permission to make a call and this was allowed.
AP1 (Applicant): When I asked the applicant for identification, he presented a press card.
AP1 (Applicant): He said he was a journalist but I don't remember for which paper.
AP1 (Applicant): Then I filled out the apprehension form and passed him to another squad, end of quote.
AP1 (Applicant): Additionally to the applicant's identification as a journalist, he was in possession of heavy camera gear consisting of two cameras.
AP1 (Applicant): He had been peacefully photographing the event and did not in any way participate in the demonstration.
AP1 (Applicant): In the district court of Helsinki, the witness Helminen had seen the applicant wearing a press badge just before exiting the cordon some minutes before the applicant's apprehension.
AP1 (Applicant): It has to be noted that the applicant did not fail to identify himself in the custody facilities.
AP1 (Applicant): As he has described in his article, he had shouted constantly to the passing police officers that he was a journalist.
AP1 (Applicant): By law, the police will receive the applicant at custody room, has to confiscate all personal belongings before passing the apprehended to an actual detention cell.
AP1 (Applicant): This means that the police officer will receive the applicant at custody room, became aware that the applicant was a journalist from the press badge which he had to confiscate for the detention time.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant has sent pictures to the court showing demonstrations, sitting down and holding their hands at the end of the demonstration.
AP1 (Applicant): In another picture which was taken sometime earlier, the demonstrators are smiling and showing peace signs.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant's role to the end was to take part in discussion as to whether there really was a riot as the police had claimed from the beginning and whether the conduct of the police was justified.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant could not have gathered and imparted this kind of information to the public if he had followed the orders of the police and left the area in the first place.
AP1 (Applicant): The public would have been deprived of their right to be told another side of the story.
AP1 (Applicant): In addition, the voice of the peaceful demonstrators could not have been heard if the applicant did not remain at the scene.
AP1 (Applicant): Journalists in Finland are strictly following the ethical guidelines.
AP1 (Applicant): The Finnish ethical guidelines for journalists require that the journalist is free from influences, including those practiced by the government.
AP1 (Applicant): Normally, the cases of conduct of journalists are dealt with by the Council for Mass Media in Finland and not as a criminal matter.
AP1 (Applicant): The conduct of the authorities might have been justifiable if the event had been chaotic, but it was not.
AP1 (Applicant): The riot had quelled one and a half hours ago.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was one of the last ones on the scene and was surrounded by hundreds of policemen.
AP1 (Applicant): It has been never claimed that the applicant was a demonstrator.
AP1 (Applicant): As the Court has noted in Gesell v. Switzerland, the government
AP1 (Applicant): should have made a distinction between a demonstrator and a journalist.
AP1 (Applicant): In Nasafli v. Azerbaijan, the Court noted that the government's
AP1 (Applicant): intention was not relevant if the journalist was only there to assert the event and had identified himself as a journalist.
AP1 (Applicant): In its written submission, the government has noted out the applicant should not have been treated the same way as other members of the crowd were treated.
AP1 (Applicant): This reveals that the government is still not interested in the applicant's status as a journalist.
AP1 (Applicant): As far as for the chilling effects of the applicant's experience, there can be no doubt that this case is chilling by nature.
AP1 (Applicant): This is confirmed by the judges in their dissenting opinion of the case.
AP1 (Applicant): The consequences of what happened to the applicant have to be assessed as a whole.
AP1 (Applicant): The conduct of the applicant was relatively insignificant in proportion to its consequences.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was kept overnight in custody for about 18 hours.
AP1 (Applicant): When he was released, the information which he had gathered was no longer a fresh news item.
AP1 (Applicant): Detention in itself has negative implications for the right of freedom of expression.
AP1 (Applicant): Criminal conviction is a grave sanction which every journalist in Finland tries to avoid.
AP1 (Applicant): Such a conviction has a negative effect on the career of a journalist.
AP1 (Applicant): It has to be noted that the applicant had to pay all his legal costs.
AP1 (Applicant): The Chamber has noted that the District Court of Helsinki saw the conduct of the applicant excusable and therefore did not impose any penalty.
AP1 (Applicant): The Chamber reasoned that it was because of the expectations arising from obligations imposed by the police and, on the other hand, by his employer.
AP1 (Applicant): One must bear in mind that almost every media house uses freelance workforce, especially in the conflict zones.
AP1 (Applicant): The freelance journalist does not traditionally have an employer.
AP1 (Applicant): Freelance journalists might be just gathering information by himself for the upcoming article.
AP1 (Applicant): With this kind of reasoning, freelance journalist conduct would not be excusable.
AP1 (Applicant): Journalists in Finland obey strictly the commands given by the police.
AP1 (Applicant): When the demonstration was coming to an end, the applicant was the only journalist at scene.
AP1 (Applicant): Journalists will continue to make effort to avoid such circumstances as long as they are likely to be sanctioned by detention and a criminal conviction.
AP1 (Applicant): This will lead to the situation where journalists cannot play their vital role as a watchdog of the government if the police can give a disproportionate command to a journalist without the adequate reason and, therefore, limit the access to information which the public has right to receive.
AP1 (Applicant): Before I move to the conclusion, I will shortly comment on the legal costs since the government has objected them.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant's legal costs meet up the level of the national regulation of the Finnish Bar Association.
AP1 (Applicant): National legal aid is just an aid to help persons in low income in the legal costs, but it is not a standard fee for any lawyer in Finland.
AP1 (Applicant): As for the conclusion, I would like to endorse that Finland is a country that appears to have highest level of press freedom rankings according to organizations such as Reporters Without Borders and Human Rights Watch.
AP1 (Applicant): If the press freedom in a modern country permits, journalists will pursue their profession to be apprehended by the police, prosecuted, and convicted of an offense.
AP1 (Applicant): And approval of this practice by the court will send wrong signals about the protection level for journalists in democratic society.
AP1 (Applicant): This would have implication in countries who have less robust protection for freedom of speech.
AP1 (Applicant): The police did not balance their interests properly when apprehending or giving a disperse order to the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): However, more can be expected of the national courts.
AP1 (Applicant): The district court of Helsinki did not give any reasons or balance interest as to why it was necessary in democratic society to interfere with the applicant's right.
AP1 (Applicant): The national court did not analyze whether the applicant needed to be the watchdog of the government or whether the cheating effect would come in question.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant tried his best to establish better legal reasoning from the national courts.
AP1 (Applicant): The appeal court of Helsinki did not change the reasoning of the case at all.
AP1 (Applicant): The highest court of Finland did not give any reasons why they would not take up the case, even if it was broadly discussed in Finland and one that said precedent.
AP1 (Applicant): This clearly shows that the Finnish authorities and courts need guidance from the European Human Rights Court.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President and distinguished members of the
AP1 (Applicant): court, I thank you for your attention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much. I call Mr. Kosonen.
GR1 (Government): ladies and gentlemen, at the beginning, the government finds it necessary to address two preliminary underlying issues that arise from the applicant's new submissions to the court, to the Grand Chamber.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, your court may not entertain accio popularis claims in respect of individuals who have not claimed to be a victim of violation burdened against the United Kingdom in 2008.
GR1 (Government): Consequently, the numerous references by the applicant to the actions of the police vis-a-vis SMAS as an event in general are entirely outside of the scope of the present proceedings.
GR1 (Government): Indeed, it is the scope.
GR1 (Government): Indeed, it is not your court's task to take a stance on the rights enjoyed by a great number of persons in abstracto, but rather to assess the questions pertaining to the present application in concreto.
GR1 (Government): Related to the above, the government further laments the number of attempts taken by the applicant to use your court as a court of third thought, or now before your Grand Chamber of, as one may call it, fifth instance.
GR1 (Government): Insofar as the applicant's entirely new submissions of this kind may be understood to require the assessment of fresh evidence not presented before the domestic courts, they are to be dismissed as falling out the scope of your court's function, gone against United Kingdom 2000.
GR1 (Government): Rather, the government submits that the present case concerns the assessment by your court of the applicant's case and that alone.
GR1 (Government): As to the real substance of the present case, the government would like to begin by noting that while it is in agreement with practically all aspects of the Grand Chamber's judgment, it is hard to follow the presumption by the chamber for the existence of an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression.
GR1 (Government): This presumption by the government warrants a careful deconstruction and reconsideration, which will be done by reiterating the government's consistent stance on the matter, now expressed through two separate arguments.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, the police in their crowd-controlling function did not prevent the applicant from covering this mass assault event.
GR1 (Government): And secondly, the applicant's conviction, detention, or apprehension did not follow from his conduct as a newspaper photographer or journalist, but from his systematic refusal to obey police orders.
GR1 (Government): It is evident that the applicant was able to take pictures right up to the very end of this mass assault event.
GR1 (Government): Again, this is explicitly admitted by the applicant, as can be seen from page 62 of the pretrial investigation record and confirmed by his own written account in the event of Suomen Kuvalehti.
GR1 (Government): The applicant claims, and I quote again, that the police actively attempted to prevent the applicant from photographing the event by putting their seals and legs in front of his camera.
GR1 (Government): And he further refers to the statement of witness aides in the district court.
GR1 (Government): This claim is unfounded.
GR1 (Government): Referring to applicants' very purposefully edited video evidence, we can see that this supposed active prevention of photography rather appears as the police attempting to secure a safe space in which it can carry out its functions at the situation.
GR1 (Government): This view is rendered still stronger when we consider that the video evidence shows a rush of photographers towards the apprehension in question being made.
GR1 (Government): The photographers who not only took photos in front of the police cordon, but also lifted the cameras above the police cordon very close to the officers' heads.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, annex 9 of the written submissions of the applicant clearly shows that the seals of the police officers in question were transparent.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, the applicant's continuous insinuation that the police made no effort to facilitate journalists' work or to inform them of matters relating to the demonstration, but rather sought to limit the rights of the media, is a leap into blind consensual.
GR1 (Government): One opposite example that counters this wild claim can be found in the way in which police had prepared for the demonstration from the point of view of the media by securing a separate area from them.
GR1 (Government): This area was located at the Pasekivi Square, opposite from Kiasma on the other side of the Manestehem Street, on the other side of the street.
GR1 (Government): The operative head of the police had appointed a senior member of police to act as a media relations contact person at the designated press area.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the planned demonstration march was to pass right in the front of the set pass at Pasekivi Square, where from the media would have had a good view.
GR1 (Government): Indeed, a television crew vehicle was there.
GR1 (Government): Obviously, none of this meant that the journalists were not able to freely cover the event or potential march from other suitable places.
GR1 (Government): These facts, however, are not for the first time contested by the applicant.
GR1 (Government): This is surprising.
GR1 (Government): They are now for the first time contested by the applicant, and this is surprising.
GR1 (Government): Indeed, even in his request for referral to the grand chamber, the applicant stated, and I quote, only journalists who came later to the scene were informed about the area for photographing or filming, end quote.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the applicant himself has stated in his own written account in Suomen Kuvalehti that he came to know of this press area during the district court proceedings.
GR1 (Government): Clearly enough, the area was there.
GR1 (Government): Still, the applicant now presents as new evidence the written statements of four journalists, of all of whom claim that they were present at the demonstration and were neither aware nor made aware of the existence of the said area.
GR1 (Government): Yet despite this assertion, some nine paragraphs later, the applicant modifies his position again and instead claims that the existence of separate press area is unconvincing.
GR1 (Government): None of this new evidence produced by the applicant has been verified or tested in the domestic courts, and moreover, is contrary to the actual circumstances of the case.
GR1 (Government): Further, the applicant's assertions on the visibility from the separate media area assume that the police at all times planned on exercising such measures as they were forced to do on that day.
GR1 (Government): However, such an assumption is false, as the actions that the police took were in reaction to the event turning into a riot.
GR1 (Government): A pertinent example to prove this is the fact that the police itself had placed its head of operations vehicle next to the area reserved for the press.
GR1 (Government): This is because that area was one where from one may have monitored the start of the entire mass event, which had it not turned into a riot.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, the police had issued a statement concerning these arrangements and sent it to all major media outlets in Finland.
GR1 (Government): Individual police officers at the demonstration were also informed via their personal radio headsets of these media arrangements.
GR1 (Government): Turning then to the reasons for apprehension of the applicant, it is clear that the applicant was apprehended due to his repeated failure to comply with consistent and clear police orders to leave the event site.
GR1 (Government): Further, to avoid any confusion on the matter, there is clear evidence that shows that the applicant was ordered personally by a police officer to leave the event.
GR1 (Government): On the basis of all of this above, the government is of the strong view that the applicant's conviction, detention, or apprehension did not follow from his conduct as a newspaper photographer or journalist, but from his systematic refusal to obey police orders.
GR1 (Government): Nevertheless, we at the Grand Chamber, to have another opinion on the question of the alleged interference, the government submits the following.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, whereas previously before the chamber
GR1 (Government): there existed no real disagreement that the alleged interference was prescribed by law, the situation has now changed markedly.
GR1 (Government): The government is appalled by the sea change of legal opinion of which there has been agreement in all instances until now.
GR1 (Government): The government recalls that your court is not a court of fourth or fifth instance, nor are the present proceedings instituted in order to try the original domestic criminal case anew.
GR1 (Government): In light of the above, the government regretfully is forced to go over a rather large portion of relevant domestic law in detail.
GR1 (Government): The appropriate questions under this heading are twofold.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, were the apprehension or subsequent 17 and 1 1 detention of the applicant prescribed by law?
GR1 (Government): Secondly, was the applicant's conviction for contumacy to the police similarly prescribed by law?