TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR3 (Government): Et plus ou moins au milieu de la page, vous avez la fin de la décision que je vous cite.
GR3 (Government): « Attendu enfin qu'en raison de ces termes simples et non équivoques, le commandement ne peut avoir en l'espèce, même à titre subsidiaire, la portée d'un acte destiné à interrompre la prescription.
GR3 (Government): Que la mention prescription du 3 octobre 1991, figurant sans autre précision sur la contrainte, ne pourrait à elle seule modifier les termes clairs de tout commandement. »
GR3 (Government): Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire?
GR3 (Government): Ça veut dire que la décision du tribunal de Bruxelles qui est venue de par mon estimé contradicteur, se base sur la formulation du commandement.
GR3 (Government): Le commandement n'était pas formulé de manière suffisamment claire et précise pour indiquer qu'il voulait interrompre le commandement.
GR3 (Government): Or, comme je vous l'ai dit, votre Chambre a relevé au paragraphe 75 de son arrêt Végotex que ce n'est pas le cas dans l'affaire Végotex.
GR3 (Government): Dans l'affaire Végotex, le commandement indiquait très explicitement qu'il visait à interrompre la prescription.
GR3 (Government): Et donc du coup, cette décision ne me paraît pas pertinente.
GR3 (Government): La deuxième décision à banquer, et on va prendre les décisions 3 et 4 ensemble, donc dans l'inventaire de mon estimé contradicteur, c'est le juge des saisies de Charleroi du 14 mai 1998 et l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de Mons du 18 mai 2000.
GR3 (Government): Alors en réalité, ces deux décisions, elles n'ont pas été publiées indépendamment.
GR3 (Government): Mon estimé contradicteur renvoie à la pièce 220 de son inventaire.
GR3 (Government): Alors personnellement, je ne me l'ai pas retrouvé dans son inventaire, la pièce 220, je l'ai retrouvée dans les annexes à sa requête, et dans sa requête, c'est l'annexe numéro 18, et non pas 20, mais peut-être que nous n'avons pas la même numérotation, mais en tout cas dans les annexes à la requête, c'est l'annexe 18.
GR3 (Government): Alors la requérante a produit la décision en néerlandais, elle a néanmoins été publiée en français, et comme la procédure est en français, je vais me permettre de vous lire un extrait en français, si vous le permettez, mais vous le retrouverez en néerlandais dans le dossier de la requérante.
GR3 (Government): Donc ce que je vais vous lire, c'est un extrait de la pasicrisie qui est la publication officielle de la décision de la Cour de cassation.
GR3 (Government): La décision a été publiée à la pasicrisie sous le numéro 526.
GR3 (Government): Je vous lis un passage.
GR3 (Government): « C'est en effet à bon droit et par les pertinents motifs que la Cour d'appel fait sien que le premier juge a statué comme il l'a fait, disons de nul et de nul effet le commandement litigieux.
GR3 (Government): Je poursuis que c'est exclusivement en tant qu'acte d'exécution que le commandement à péril de saisie-exécution a été signifié.
GR3 (Government): Dans un contexte tel que nul et de nul effet en tant qu'acte d'exécution, il ne peut sortir à défaut de mentions expresses en ce sens les effets visés à l'article 2244 du Code civil. »
GR3 (Government): Donc ça, c'est ce que décide la Cour d'appel, qui s'approprie les motifs du premier juge, donc leur décision c'est quoi?
GR3 (Government): C'est qu'il n'y avait pas de mention expresse dans le commandement de l'effet interruptif.
GR3 (Government): Et donc à nouveau, décision peut-être intéressante, mais affaire d'espèce, qui n'est pas applicable dans notre affaire Végotex, puisque dans notre affaire Végotex, il y avait une mention expresse dans le commandement de l'effet interruptif de la prescription, paragraphe 75 de l'arrêt Végotex.
GR3 (Government): Alors ensuite, mon estimé contradicteur, et c'est la décision numéro 5 de son inventaire d'hier, cite l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel d'Anvers du 12 mars 2001.
GR3 (Government): Alors il indique que c'est la pièce 221 de son inventaire.
GR3 (Government): Personnellement, moi je l'ai retrouvée en annexe 19 à la requête.
GR3 (Government): C'est en irlandais, et de ce passage-là, il n'y a pas de traduction officielle en français.
GR3 (Government): Et donc si vous permettez, je vais vous le lire en irlandais.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Maitre Jafferali, vous avez deux minutes encore s'il vous plaît.
GR2 (Government): D'accord.
GR2 (Government): Eh bien très rapidement alors, je ne vais pas le lire, c'est exactement la même chose, c'est à la page, c'est dans les faits, enfin c'est à la page, peu importe, c'est dans la décision attaquée, si vous allez lire en néerlandais, vous verrez que c'est exactement la même chose.
GR2 (Government): Et puis vient enfin l'arrêt du, comment dirais-je, l'arrêt de la cour d'appel au Bruxelles du 9 mai 2001, qui est la pièce 6 invoquée par mon estimé contradicteur, et là je vous lis, donc c'est un nouveau arrêt attaqué devant la cour de cassation du 12 mars 2004, et je vous lis le passage pertinent, la cour d'appel par l'arrêt attaqué réformant la décision du premier juge, dit pour droit que le dit commandement signifiait au demandeur la requête du défendeur, a interrompu la prescription.
GR2 (Government): Et donc comme je vous le disais, cet arrêt de la cour d'appel de Bruxelles va dans le sens de l'État belge et non pas dans le sens de la requérence.
GR2 (Government): Et c'est pourquoi je vous disais qu'il s'agissait bien d'une jurisprudence non pas divisée, mais très largement majoritaire en faveur de la thèse de l'État belge.
GR2 (Government): Et en réponse à la question de savoir s'il y a des sources non publiées, j'aimerais faire deux observations.
GR2 (Government): La première c'est que dans notre inventaire que nous avons produit hier, nous avons cité des décisions non publiées, mais à laquelle la doctrine se réfère.
GR2 (Government): Et deuxièmement, nous n'avons pas d'autres décisions non publiées à produire, mais l'état du droit et l'état de la jurisprudence doit être établi, me semble-t-il, sur base de la jurisprudence publiée.
GR2 (Government): Parce que la sécurité juridique, elle s'établit sur base de ce que tout justiciable peut savoir et légitimement savoir.
GR2 (Government): Si une décision est tout à fait non publiée, que personne n'en a connaissance à part l'État belge, elle ne peut pas fonder la sécurité juridique.
GR2 (Government): Ce qui compte c'est précisément les décisions publiées ou les décisions rendues accessibles par le biais de la doctrine.
GR2 (Government): J'espère avoir ainsi ce faisant répondu aux questions.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Je remercie alors les comparants qui ont assisté à la Cour par leur intervention et leur réponse à notre question.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Alors, nous arrivons au terme de l'audience.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): La Cour va maintenant délibérer sous le fonds de l'affaire.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Biao against Denmark.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on the 12th of July 2010 under Article 34 of the Convention by Mr. Ousmane
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Biao, a Danish national, and his wife, Miss Asia Adamo Biao, a Ghana national.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the second section of the court, pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 25th of March 2014, a chamber of that section declared the application admissible and delivered a judgment in which it held that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention and no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 24th of June 2014, the applicants 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 the 8th of September 2014.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 5th of December 2014, the president of the Grand Chamber granted leave to the Air Center to submit written comments as a third party by virtue of Rule 44, Paragraph 3 of the Rules of Court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The government, represented by their agent, Mr. Jonas
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Bering Liisberg of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, assisted by their co-agent, Mrs. Nina Holst-Christensen,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and by Mr. Kim Lunding, Mr. Anders Herping Nielsen,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Martin Bang, and Mrs. Maria Aviaja Sander Holm, advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The applicants are represented by Mr. Steen Petersen,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): counsel assisted by Mr. Niels-Erik Hansen and Mr. Henrik Karl
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Nielsen, advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would also like to welcome a delegation of judges and prosecutors from the European Judicial Training Network and a group of Bulgarian judges who are on a study visit to the court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Peterson for the applicants will speak first,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and then Mr. Bering Liisberg for the government.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Mr. Petersen.
AP1 (Applicant): I appear before the court on behalf of both the applicants and argue that the rights of the applicants under Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 8, as well as the European Convention on Nationality, Article 5.2, have been interfered with,
AP1 (Applicant): that interference is not justified under Article 8, paragraph 2, the interference is not proportionate, not sufficiently to pursue a legitimate aim, that Denmark cannot lawfully treat its citizens differently solely on the basis of how and when they have acquired their citizenship, that a difference in treatment of Danish nationals is to a decisive extent based on the applicant's race and or ethnic origin and not on other status.
AP1 (Applicant): That Mr. Bjau's acquisition of citizenship later in life,
AP1 (Applicant): 2002, meant that he, after living in Denmark for nine years at the age of 31, still was treated differently than indirectly on his and his spouse's race and or ethnic origin and not on other status.
AP1 (Applicant): That the government's specific aim with the introduction of the 28 years rule, as per 1st of January 2004, was to single out and solely help Danish native expatriates who, after introduction of the attachment rule in 2003, had experienced great difficulties when they wanted to return and to settle in Denmark with their foreign family in their third age.
AP1 (Applicant): That the 28 years rule is excessively strict, that is not evident nor proved that the strength of one's ties continuously and significantly increases after, for example, 10, 15, 26, or 28 years in a country.
AP1 (Applicant): That the 28 years rule exempt an unknown number of Danish native expatriates, whether or not they have lived in Denmark and whether or not they have retained strong ties with Denmark.
AP1 (Applicant): That the interference do not completely fall within the state's marking of appreciation.
AP1 (Applicant): That any marking of appreciation in a case like this is not very wide because respect of family life and family reunion are core values and aspects of particular important human rights.
AP1 (Applicant): That it is indisputable that direct and indirect discrimination has occurred.
AP1 (Applicant): Further, I argue that the rights of the applicants under Article 6, 13, and 41 also have been interfered with since 2003 as to the state.
AP1 (Applicant): The responsibility of Denmark has been engaged.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, the applicants should be awarded just compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the form of anxiety, stress, frustration, and damage under respect of the applicant's family life.
AP1 (Applicant): The just compensation should be awarded to according to Article 6, 13, and 41 based alone on the unreasonable long time this particularly important case has lasted since 2003.
AP1 (Applicant): The amounts awarded to the applicants should be totally €44,000 or €48,000 or at least €36,000 according to the court's decision in Sulu, Cocchierelle, and Pisati v.
AP1 (Applicant): Italy, judgments of 10th November 2004, paragraph 26.
AP1 (Applicant): I come back to the amounts later in my speech.
AP1 (Applicant): Even if the court do not find violations of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8, the court should award the set amount based on Article 6, 13, and 41.
AP1 (Applicant): And I refer to the leading case, Spångarenlundråd, Sweden, 1982.
AP1 (Applicant): Now, the applicants dispute that the 30-years-old Abdulaziz v.
AP1 (Applicant): United Kingdom is fully comparable with this case, apart from the fact that the former commission found serious violations of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 based on racial discrimination.
AP1 (Applicant): It's unclear on what basis the court in 1985 did not reach the same conclusion as the commission as the purpose to limit immigrants' access to the English labor market was to lower the number of colored immigrants from India and Pakistan.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicants fully agree with the reasoning in the minority report in the Danish Supreme Court in 2010 and the minority opinion in the Biao case last year.
AP1 (Applicant): Furthermore, the applicants agree with the minority's serious critique in the Biao case last year, paragraphs 99 to 102.
AP1 (Applicant): It is noteworthy that the Danish judge, Per Luransen, is one of the very critical judges in the majority opinion, together with Paul Lemmens.
AP1 (Applicant): I emphasize that as per 2004, Denmark had approximately 8.2
AP1 (Applicant): percent of immigrants and their descendants out of a population of roughly 5.3 million.
AP1 (Applicant): So the applicants are indisputably in a minority group in Denmark.
AP1 (Applicant): On the other hand, these figures cannot explain the government's fears in 2000 to 2003 of a severe risk of Denmark being flooded with immigrants.
AP1 (Applicant): It seems unlikely that the sheer number, 8.2 percent out of 5.3 million of immigrants,
AP1 (Applicant): is solely responsible for the new restrictive measures.
AP1 (Applicant): Now, the uncertain and insufficient statistics produced by the government first in 2015, I refer to the statement of 15 of January 2015, page 17, and exhibit 2, does not explain the full story nor give the court or the applicants a real and valuable insight into the state's real motives for excessively tightening the Illin Act.
AP1 (Applicant): I dispute that the government should not be able to answer completely all of the court's relevant questions so the court and the applicants at last could obtain a true and fair picture of all the issues at hand.
AP1 (Applicant): I also dispute that the government is not allowed to identify cases and persons in a true and fair view because of prohibitions in Danish legislation.
AP1 (Applicant): See page 18 in the said statement from the government.
AP1 (Applicant): The figures, however, shows in the statement, page 19 and exhibit 2, that other aliens is a very tiny, little figure compared to refugees and Danish Nordic nationals for a period 1st of January 2004 to ultimo 2014.
AP1 (Applicant): However, I argue that the statistics is not sufficient, they are not detailed enough, and not in favor of the government.
AP1 (Applicant): Since the High Court judgment of September 2002, sorry 2007, the applicants and the government have agreed that in spite of the neutral and stereotype wording of the Illin Act, section 9, subsection 7, in practice, indirect discrimination is created, especially for non-Danes coming from primarily non-Western countries.
AP1 (Applicant): I refer to the High Court's reasoning in the Biao judgment, page 21.
AP1 (Applicant): The parties agree that the facts fall within the ambit of article 14 and 8, so the dispute is, was this discrimination justifiable, proportionate, and pursue a legitimate aim, and does it fall exclusively within the scope of Denmark's marking of appreciation.
AP1 (Applicant): On the statistical and factual background, I dispute that the applicants are to blame for anything, and for not fully understanding the very complex, unclear, and unforeseeable Illin Act, with over 100 amendments since 1983.
AP1 (Applicant): Various insufficient and misinformative public websites has been the case, too.
AP1 (Applicant): I refer to the exhibits from the applicants, the websites criticized by the Danish ombudsman in 2005 and 2008.
AP1 (Applicant): Compared to the Abdelaziz case, paragraph 38 statistics, the court can see here that the English government in fact was able to produce detailed and valid statistics as opposed to the government in this case.
AP1 (Applicant): I dispute also that the Danish alien authorities do not have an exoficient duty to guide and advise the applicants, particularly when the relevant law and other rules are so complex, so unclear, and so unforeseeable.
AP1 (Applicant): The ombudsman in the exhibits in the file criticized the lack of sufficient guidance from the alien authorities, and he had to tell the alien authorities back in 2003 how to do things correctly and inform correctly.
AP1 (Applicant): It is in this light the court has to read Exhibit 1, the revised memo of the government of 1 December 2005.
AP1 (Applicant): I emphasize that this memorandum is not part of the Alien Act.
AP1 (Applicant): The government in its statement totally omits to tell the court about the real background of this Exhibit 1.
AP1 (Applicant): The alien authorities did not have enough or any attention paid to the EU law and Luxembourg court's judgment, among others the very important Metox judgment I refer to the court's letter of 6 March this year.
AP1 (Applicant): So if the applicants could and still cannot even trust the correctness of all published and relevant information from the alien authorities, and these authorities quote, forget, unquote, to publish in due time relevant and vital information, I ask the court who is to blame in this case.
AP1 (Applicant): My answer is not the applicants for sure.
AP1 (Applicant): I refer to my written letter of March 10th this year concerning the three questions from the court.
AP1 (Applicant): I won't repeat them, but I'm very much looking forward to hear the answers from the government today.
AP1 (Applicant): If it really is true that the applicants coming from Togo and Ghana in reality by the alien authorities should have been granted family reunification in 2005, the government has acted very irresponsible.
AP1 (Applicant): The same goes for the situation described in the court's letter of 6 March, question 2.
AP1 (Applicant): The main casualties were after 2008 a lot of years or at least a lot of time to realize and implement the consequences of Metox and other very important judgment from Luxembourg in their administrative practice and on the website New in Denmark.
AP1 (Applicant): Probably Denmark is likely to be responsible for the applicants' losses because of the maladministration, misinformation, omissions, and a total lack of timely correct guidance and advice to the applicants.
AP1 (Applicant): I remind the court of that the Convention with Protocols and Dynamic U.S. Prudence was incorporated by law in Denmark
AP1 (Applicant): as of 1 July 1992.
AP1 (Applicant): The convention seems to have an almost crazy constitutional character in Denmark, and this court has several times emphasized that a convention is a living instrument which has to be interpreted in the present day condition.
AP1 (Applicant): I refer to Tyre v. United Kingdom, 1978, paragraph 31,
AP1 (Applicant): Marx v. Begum, 99, paragraph 41, and Lucido v. Turkey,
AP1 (Applicant): 1998, paragraph 71.
AP1 (Applicant): The convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory, but rights that are practical and effective.
AP1 (Applicant): I refer to Arry v. Ireland, 1979, paragraph 24.
AP1 (Applicant): The condition imposed for the exercise of a human right must not impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness.
AP1 (Applicant): See Mathieu Mohin v. Begum, 1987, paragraph 52.
AP1 (Applicant): Because the interpretation of the convention is particularly concerned with substance, not form, the courts may need to look behind the appearances and investigate the realities of the procedure in question.
AP1 (Applicant): Neither the Danish court in 2007 nor the Supreme Court in 2010, in the applicant's opinion, looked sufficiently and sort of enough behind the Alien Act's formal appearance and into the complete realities in this case.
AP1 (Applicant): The High Court finding that the indirect discrimination occurred in practice stated that the High Court finds no sufficient basis for holding that your refusal was not valid.
AP1 (Applicant): Look at the words, no sufficient basis.
AP1 (Applicant): In other words, perhaps with more detailed information and complete statistics from the Danish Alien Assortatives, as to the substance and to the effect of the Alien Act, the result in the High Court in 2007 and Supreme Court in 2010 might have been finding in favor for the applicants.
AP1 (Applicant): It's a fact that the government is unable to answer how many Danish expatriates benefited from the 28-years rule.
AP1 (Applicant): That's a fact.
AP1 (Applicant): We don't know anything about it.
AP1 (Applicant): We don't know the number.
AP1 (Applicant): We don't know anything.
AP1 (Applicant): The government's reasoning in its statement this year with Exhibits 1 and 2, neither is very convincing, nor live up to the quality, the details, and the far more useful statistics we saw in Abdulaziz, paragraph 38.
AP1 (Applicant): As the burden of proof lies on the government's table, I urge this court to dismiss the unuseful and irrelevant statistics as valid evidence.
AP1 (Applicant): Even if this court does not review the system of the domestic in abstracto, the court have to determine now whether the manner in which the Danish Alien Act system in Denmark was applied to or affected, the applicants give rise to any violations of convention rights.
AP1 (Applicant): That's crucial for this case.
AP1 (Applicant): A banner must ensure the fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoid the abuse of a dominant position.
AP1 (Applicant): I remind you of the applicants' vulnerable situation in this case.
AP1 (Applicant): Since Denmark in 1983 got its first Alien Act, at that time one of the most liberal laws in the world, amendment acts have been made over 100 times, and the immigration and family unification policies have been cited, primarily backed by the Danish People's Party, whose support has been needed, whoever was in government, to stay in power.
AP1 (Applicant): This right-wing People's Party has become well known for its strong and provoking anti-immigration ideas and policies.
AP1 (Applicant): In a newspaper information on 8th of November 2010, the party's spokesman, Martin Henriksen, said, we have for years said that it's quite all right to discriminate.
AP1 (Applicant): That is okay with us.
AP1 (Applicant): It is to a large extent the Muslim immigration we want to stop.
AP1 (Applicant): I urge this court to look very softly behind the appearances and look into the intense and human rights violations that are the consequences for the applicants of the Danish Alien Act and the 28 years rule.
AP1 (Applicant): I can refer to my statement of 14th of December 2012 to this court where things are elaborated.
AP1 (Applicant): So in practice, the applicants are placed in a significant poor situation as opposed to Danish natives and Danish expatriates.
AP1 (Applicant): Why this difference?
AP1 (Applicant): The applicants have no possibility of being born in Denmark and being citizens from birth.
AP1 (Applicant): In a way, if you look at the rule, you can see that apart from many other demands, it is almost illusory to obtain family reunion in Denmark.
AP1 (Applicant): I refer to the court's Biaudjustment, paragraph 90 and 99 to 102 and the dissenting opinion.
AP1 (Applicant): The mechanical rules in the Alien Act, section 9, for calculating in which country a couple has lived longest affects especially immigrants from non-Western countries and their descendants.
AP1 (Applicant): That is Mr. Biaudjustment coming from Togo and Mrs. Biaudjustment
AP1 (Applicant): coming from Ghana.