TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): And I would just remind the court that this is not a fourth instance proceeding ruling on all of the facts.
GR1 (Government): But this is an Article VII case dealing with the principle of legality.
GR1 (Government): And finally, Judge Butinich asked about the definition of political groups.
GR1 (Government): Of course, there have not been prosecutions and a lot of case law of the political group part of genocide.
GR1 (Government): That's what this case is about, obviously.
GR1 (Government): But there aren't a lot of authorities on that that I can point the court to.
GR1 (Government): The issue has been considered in case law dealing with crimes against humanity.
GR1 (Government): And it was at Nuremberg.
GR1 (Government): And there's a discussion of this in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, because the Nazis did persecute and destroy political groups, socialists, communists, liberals, religious groups, and so on.
GR1 (Government): So there's some authority for it.
GR1 (Government): But in a way, it's as vague, I have to say, Mr. President, members of the court,
GR1 (Government): as the definitions of things like a racial group or a national group.
GR1 (Government): We have some of the same problems that arise with this as we do with a political group.
GR1 (Government): I can't suggest more than a common sense approach to it.
GR1 (Government): You too.
GR1 (Government): Goodbye.
GR1 (Government): Thank you All.
GR1 (Government): I appreciate it.
GR1 (Government): Thank you for taking your time.
GR1 (Government): Thank you for listening to these talks.
GR1 (Government): And actually, I want to address one other thing.
GR1 (Government): Just to note that today we were looking into extreme fundamental issues, and this space is divided into districts, and at your request, variations, and districts.
GR1 (Government): That's all within the scope of the case law, Thanks.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Professor Schabas. I give the floor to Mr. Vilčinskas.
AP1 (Applicant): The answer to the questions of the Judge Zemel, your honor, I say that in the courts about partisan resistance and movement, there was no investigation in the first instance in the upper lieutenant of the Supreme Court, in all courts of the union.
AP1 (Applicant): The courts get written only that brothers were partisans.
AP1 (Applicant): And that's all.
AP1 (Applicant): Fathers for the President questions, your honor, the first question, the first answer.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant's actions could not be either crimes then and cannot be now.
AP1 (Applicant): As I think from these materials, one of those who were in the National Courts of Lithuania.
AP1 (Applicant): His mistake might be that he was an officer of the Soviet Union in that times.
AP1 (Applicant): The answer, the second.
AP1 (Applicant): According to the constitutional law of the Republic of Lithuania, the citizen can be a party in the hearings of the Constitutional Court.
AP1 (Applicant): And he, my client, did not participate in the mentioned hearings of the Constitutional Court.
AP1 (Applicant): And I don't know more than it was published by constitutional law in its ruling.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The parties will be informed of any decision in due course.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the admissibility and merits in the case of Center for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu against Romania.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The case was lodged on the 2nd of October 2008 with the court under Article 34 of the Convention by a Romanian NGO, the Center for Legal Resources, on behalf of the late Mr. Valentin Câmpeanu,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): who was a national of Romania. The application was allocated to the third
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): section of the court, which on the 19th of March 2013 decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 14th of October 2011, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights exercised his right to submit written observations and on the 13th of April 2013 he expressed the wish to take part in the hearing by virtue of Rule 44, paragraph 2, of the rules of the court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The President of the Grand Chamber granted leave to the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, the Euro Regional Center for Public Initiatives, the Human Rights Watch, and the Mental Disability Advocacy Center to submit written comments as third parties by virtue of Rule 44, paragraph 3, of the rules of court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Ms. Catrinel Brumar from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, assisted by Mr.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Gabriel Caian, counsel and by Mr. Dragoș Dumitrache, co-agent.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Georgiana Iorgulescu,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): executive director, and by Mr. Georgiana Pascu,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): program manager of the Center of Legal Resources, who are assisted by Mr. Constantin Cojocariu, lawyers of inter-rights.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Nils Muižnieks,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): is assisted by Ms. Isil Gachet,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): director of the Commissioner's Office, and by Ms. Anne Weber,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): advisor.
Dean Spielmann (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 Russian attorneys who are on a study visit to the court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Having consulted the agent of the government, the representatives of the applicant, and the Commissioner for Human Rights, I have determined the order of addresses as follows.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Brumar and Mr. Caian for the government will speak first.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Then Mr. Cojocariu and Ms. Iorgulescu will speak for the applicant.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): And finally, the floor will be given to Mr. Muižnieks,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): the Commissioner for Human Rights.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Ms. Brumar.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, honorable judges, what if the representatives
GR1 (Government): of the respondent states will begin with a confession?
GR1 (Government): The government could not but join the applicant in expressing their regret for the death of Mr. Kampan.
GR1 (Government): We are well aware that discussing circumstances leading to a human tragedy is a difficult task, as the emotional reactions surrounding this hearing plainly show it.
GR1 (Government): However, we trust that the court will carefully assess the legal arguments which my colleague, Mr. Kayan,
GR1 (Government): and I will develop before the grand chamber.
GR1 (Government): First, I will address the preliminary but crucial aspect, which is the legal standing of the non-governmental entity which brought the case before the court.
GR1 (Government): Subsequently, my colleague will address the special elements and the public interest issues invoked by the applicant in order to establish its claim to the recognition of locus standi, and briefly refer to certain aspects related to the merits.
GR1 (Government): The present case is generated by an application the non-governmental organization, Center for Legal Resources, lodged with the court on behalf of the late Mr. Valentin Kampan.
GR1 (Government): The application was filed following actions taken by the organization at domestic level.
GR1 (Government): Its demarches were initiated after having been informed that Mr. Kampan, whom its representative had briefly
GR1 (Government): seen during his hospitalization, had died.
GR1 (Government): The applicant association never established any contact other than this brief visual one with Mr. Kampan,
GR1 (Government): and had never had this particular situation on their agenda.
GR1 (Government): Obviously, this concisely resumed factual element raised the following question.
GR1 (Government): Does the non-governmental organization, Center for Legal Resources, have locus standi before the court for the purpose of acting on behalf of Mr. Kampan or not?
GR1 (Government): Clearly, the main concern raised by the case, which eventually led to the relinquishment of the jurisdiction in favor of the grand chamber, is this very question.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, honorable judges, we strongly
GR1 (Government): argue that the applicant is neither a representative of a victim nor a victim, and that its initiative, although expressive of its goals, namely the protection of human rights, falls outside the purpose and the scope of the convention.
GR1 (Government): The government are well aware of the dynamic and evolving interpretation of the convention in the light of the present day conditions.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the government could not ignore the finding of the court in cases like Loizidu or Bankovic and others, stating that the convention must be interpreted and applied to make its safeguards practical and effective.
GR1 (Government): We are also well aware of the fact that the idea of the convention being a living instrument was applied not only to its substantive provisions, but more relevantly to its interpretation of former Article 25, the current Article 34, given the special character of the convention as a constitutional instrument of European public order for the protection of individual human beings.
GR1 (Government): However, the government underlined that all these developments of the case law are and must be construed only in the context of the interpretation of the convention, which is the process of determining the meaning of a given text.
GR1 (Government): None of this guidance given by the court could, in the government's opinion, be considered to support an indirect conventional amendment.
GR1 (Government): In the light of these preliminary remarks, the interpretation we submit to the court is the one that prevents the neglect of both the wording and the spirit of Article 34.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, we firmly uphold that this interpretation is not a restrictive and technical approach that would deny the very essence of the rights under assessment or the broader interest for the human rights protection.
GR1 (Government): Nor do the government intend to escape scrutiny of their compliance with the obligation under the convention as the applicant and the third parties contend.
GR1 (Government): Given the applicant's written observation where it pleads for the recognition of a possibility for every non-governmental organization to petition the court in order to raise awareness on the potential violation of fundamental rights of third parties, the government consider that, in essence, the applicant pleads for the recognition of an actio popularis for the benefit of the non-governmental organization and, as a consequence, for the forsake of the victim concept.
GR1 (Government): Even if such a change in the approach of the victim concept were to be pursued by way of interpretation, it is to be emphasized that such a shift in the court's jurisprudence should not be the mere result of a reexamination of Article 34 in an isolated demarche, but one that is derived from the acknowledgment of the state parties' common understanding of the current content of the concept.
GR1 (Government): As the court has constantly held, an actio popularis was only accepted for the states in order to supervise each other under Article 33 and implies the waiver of the victim condition imposed by Article 34.
GR1 (Government): To leave aside the condition of claiming to be a victim for the third party means to put on equal footing the states and the non-governmental entities, which obviously benefit from a different treatment in terms of the right to individual recourse according to the intention and desire of the contracting parties.
GR1 (Government): It is our government conclusion at this general and preliminary level that the interpretation of the convention, although evolving and extensive, could not be divorced from the contracting parties' intention and understandings of the conventional goals.
GR1 (Government): It is useful to recall that during all three high-level conferences on the future of the European Court, the participating states reaffirmed their attachment to the right of individual application before the European Court.
GR1 (Government): The recurring use of the words attachment or reaffirmation of their commitment to the above-mentioned right clearly indicates that the 47 contracting parties still share 60 years after the entering into force of the convention the same understanding on the exercise of the individual petition only by an individual, non-governmental entity, or group of individuals that claim to be a victim, be it a direct victim, an indirect, or a potential one.
GR1 (Government): In assessing the victim status of the applicant, we find consistent support in the court's case law.
GR1 (Government): Thus, in the case of Goray Zlizariga and others, when taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the applicant association was set up for the specific purpose of defending its members' interests before the courts, and that those members were directly concerned by the dam project, the court considered that the applicant association, together with its members, could claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34.
GR1 (Government): On the other hand, in the case of Fédération Chrétienne de Témoin de Gévaudan de France, the applicant, a national association representing Jehovah's Witnesses and complaining about a parliamentary report on sects, was considered not to be a victim, as it could not claim to have been directly affected by the measure in question.
GR1 (Government): In the Conca decision, the court allowed the preliminary objection of the respondent state in respect to the legal standing of a human rights organization, which complained on its own right, but also on behalf of the Conca family's members.
GR1 (Government): Persons of Roma ethnicity in a particular vulnerable situation who had been expelled from the territory.
GR1 (Government): This court reiterated that each applicant should be able to indicate that the alleged violation concerns him or her directly, and concluded that the organization could not pretend to be affected by the measures purportedly touching the individual's rights.
GR1 (Government): We know that the court has denied standing as applicants to non-governmental bodies set up with no other aim than to vindicate the rights of alleged victims.
GR1 (Government): And even to non-governmental organizations whose very purpose was to defend human rights.
GR1 (Government): Thus, in the case of Adarossi, the court, although noting the important role played by the applicant associations in providing assistance to care for people in a vegetative state, considered that the impugned acts, namely the decision of the Milan Court of Justice, could not actually have any impact on their activities.
GR1 (Government): Turning to the legal standing in terms of the conventional standards as developed by the court in its case law, we recall that the indirect victim is described as an individual who is not directly affected by a particular measure or omission, but who may nevertheless be affected by the violation of the conventional rights of another person.
GR1 (Government): Still in this hypothesis, the court also assesses the valid personal interest that the applicant could put forward in order to legitimize her position.
GR1 (Government): According to the court, an indirect victim situation may often occur in respect of close family members, but it could also include other third parties as long as there is a sufficiently proven legal or factual link between the person and the indirect victim.
GR1 (Government): This hypothesis still requires that the indirect victim provides sufficient evidence of a valid personal interest, more precisely, the existence of a link and the ability of the alleged violation to reflect its effect on his or her situation.
GR1 (Government): At this point of our oral submission, we have to stress that the applicant association invokes in its complaint and all the subsequent observations solely the violation of fundamental rights of the late Mr. Campan.
GR1 (Government): No allegation refers to its own rights that would have been affected or disrespected.
GR1 (Government): In the light of the case law cited above, the government conclude that the applicant organization cannot pretend to be considered a direct victim.
GR1 (Government): At the same time, no indication on the existing link between the applicant and Mr. Campano
GR1 (Government): emerges from those observations.
GR1 (Government): The applicant itself acknowledges that its representation only briefly saw Mr. Campano
GR1 (Government): and that its initial attempt to establish contact with him took place only after his death.
GR1 (Government): As there is no submission that a personal link was involved, we will concentrate on whether a potential legal or factual link exists.
GR1 (Government): According to the Becker and Skudager decisions, for a person to invoke the status of indirect victim, it is necessary to prove that by virtue of a presumably valid act, he or she was entrusted with the care or the protection of the interests of the direct victim who is unable to complain himself or herself.
GR1 (Government): A contrario, the applicant association has never been entrusted with the care of Mr. Campano
GR1 (Government): in any way.
GR1 (Government): In these circumstances, we consider that the applicant is not a victim, neither in its direct nor its indirect capacity, and respectfully ask the court not to depart from its constant findings on this matter.
GR1 (Government): Turning to the representative status of the applicant, we would like to reiterate that, beside the absence of a traditional empowerment emanating from Mr. Campano
GR1 (Government): before his death, no other circumstances were invoked in the present case to show at least the prima facie written evidence concerning representation.
GR1 (Government): As large and non-formalistic as the notion of representation is conceived at the European level, it is undeniable that some form of authorization, at least conferred by law or recognized by domestic authorities, should exist and be presented.
GR1 (Government): Although acknowledging that the representation before the European court has a less formalistic implication than under the domestic law, the commission underlined that the representative should submit evidence showing that he is empowered to appear before the convention organs on the applicant's behalf.
GR1 (Government): If this condition is not met, the commission can only consider the application insofar as the representative himself claims to be a victim, either in his direct or indirect capacity.
GR1 (Government): The applicant association attempts to draw consequences on the recognition of legal standing from its involvement in criminal proceedings initiated before the investigative domestic authorities, as well as before the domestic courts.
GR1 (Government): Article 278, index 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for the right to challenge in court the prosecutor's decisions, was the legal provision allowing the Romanian High Court to rule that the applicant is entitled to bring proceedings before it.
GR1 (Government): The High Court indicated that the wording, any other person, was intended to include moral persons, such as the applicant, which aim at raising awareness to the standards of protection of human rights.
GR1 (Government): Thus, the legitimate interest of the Center for Legal Resources was inferred from its statute and its involvement in the investigative stage of the proceedings by denouncing the alleged shortcomings.
GR1 (Government): It is obvious that the domestic law, as interpreted by the Romanian High Court, amounts to the acknowledgement of an actio popularis.
GR1 (Government): Notwithstanding the legitimatio ad causa given by the domestic law to the non-governmental entities in such cases, the government argue, in turn, that the very wording of the European Convention does not allow such a broad interpretation.
GR1 (Government): The government must also stress an essential aspect the applicant seems to interpret erroneously.
GR1 (Government): The national authorities never recognized that the applicant acted on behalf of the late Mr. Campano
GR1 (Government): or that the applicant is Mr. Campano's representative.
GR1 (Government): The applicant's position in the domestic proceedings was that of a person the interests of whom had been harmed.
GR1 (Government): The interpretation promoted by the High Court underlines that the general interest for the respect of the principle of legality is not in itself sufficient to justify a person's time.
GR1 (Government): In turn, the interest for the respect for human rights contained in the statute of a legal person and promoted through concrete actions before the domestic authorities could justify it.
GR1 (Government): Thus, the appeals lodged by the applicant were not examined as emanating from the representative of the victim.
GR1 (Government): This aspect is inferred from the very fact that the High Court did not see at any moment the appeals as being introduced by the injured party personally or through representation, but as pertaining to a person as any other person, the interests of whom had been harmed.
GR1 (Government): As to the influence of the domestic legislation on the court's evaluation of local standing, the commission pointed out the autonomous character of the concept of victim as it must be interpreted independently of concepts of domestic law concerning such matters as interest or capacity to take legal proceedings.
GR1 (Government): consider that the interpretation of the convention must be prudent in order to avoid bringing about elements that were not intended to be included when the convention was drafted.
GR1 (Government): In this way, in the government's opinion, a line is thought to be drawn between judicial interpretation, which is permissible, and judicial lawmaking, which is not.
GR1 (Government): Having reached this stage of our oral submission, please allow me, Mr. President, to pass the floor
GR1 (Government): to my colleague, Mr. Kayan.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Ms. Brumar.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Mr. Caian.
GR2 (Government): Mr. President, Honorable Court, the Applicant Association invoked the existence
GR2 (Government): of special elements and the public interest in order to establish its claim on the recognition of locus standi. Three issues are emphasized by the applicant as special elements
GR2 (Government): that could and, in its opinion, should justify the granting of locus standi.
GR2 (Government): The situation of Mr. Campano, the role of NGOs in the protection of human rights,
GR2 (Government): and the interest of human rights exception from admissibility rules.
GR2 (Government): These elements, together with the interaction between the domestic and the conventional approach on legal standing, are considered sufficient elements to allow the construction of a new concept, which is the representation post mortem of the direct victim by a third party in the absence of any link between the victim and the representative.
GR2 (Government): The government do not dispute the fact that Mr. Campano was a vulnerable person,
GR2 (Government): that he was an orphan, and he had no legal guardian appointed.
GR2 (Government): Nevertheless, we consider that the issue of the personal vulnerable situation coming to the attention of a third party alone is not sufficient to transform the said third party into a representative in the absence of any link to the direct victim, be it representation or entrustment with the care of that person.
GR2 (Government): The applicant argues that the nonrecognition of representative status would allow the government to prevail itself of Mr. Campano's unfortunate situation in order
GR2 (Government): to avoid the court's scrutiny.