TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR2 (Government): In my previous presentation, I mentioned three situations.
GR2 (Government): First one is the premature separation of placenta that I called the sudden abruption of oxygen supply to the fetus during labor.
GR2 (Government): It's really difficult to get hard and precise data.
GR2 (Government): However, in the Czech Republic, where we have approximately 100,000 births, and overall among term babies, we experience 100 deaths of a baby during first week of life, which is the period which can be attributable to complications during labor, is 100.
GR2 (Government): In the Czech Republic, we have those premature separations of placenta in year 2011, over 150.
GR2 (Government): If I say that at least two-thirds are occurring among term babies, and if those deliveries are occurring at the home environment, there is no way for the baby to survive.
GR2 (Government): If you weight those individual cases of sudden abruption of oxygen supply to the overall early neonatal mortality in the country, that would double the outcome, the adverse outcome.
GR2 (Government): The second condition was profuse bleeding during labor or shortly after delivery of a child.
GR2 (Government): Again, it's a matter of measure, how we measure the outcome.
GR2 (Government): But Czech data, they show that 4% of deliveries are experiencing heavy bleeding.
GR2 (Government): If we talk about other cause for sudden abruption of oxygen supply to the baby, there's a situation when the umbilical cord gets before the presenting part, in case of home delivery, probably the present baby's head, and the baby's head is actually terminating the blood flow in the umbilical cord.
GR2 (Government): We have usually in between 30 to 50 in the country in absolute terms.
GR2 (Government): Talking about the international data and international experience, again, there are studies of small extent which are hardly conclusive.
GR2 (Government): And again, it's a matter of how we do measure adverse outcome.
GR2 (Government): If we are talking about mortality of the baby, which can be possibly attributable to the course of labor, we are talking about almost rare events.
GR2 (Government): Among term babies, it's less than half per 1,000.
GR2 (Government): And therefore, if we use that measure, we need huge numbers to say what's better and what's worse.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, I would like to brought your attention to recently published studies in June and August this year, which are actually dealing with millions of births in the United States, and which are actually describing the period of the one week after delivery, and documenting that those babies who are born in the home environment, they have higher early neonatal mortality under those conditions.
GR2 (Government): I would also like to turn your attention to the fact that even if you do very thorough selection of women with uncomplicated physiological pregnancy, in large extent, even in countries with higher proportion of home births, you have to transfer emergently the mother in labor to the hospital, sometimes exceeding the level of 40%.
GR2 (Government): And last remark is that the question is...
Mark Villiger (JudgeP): Mr. Villabil, you have exceeded your time. Could you please come to an end?
GR2 (Government): Okay.
GR2 (Government): I would like to mention the recent data of EuroPeristat, published in May 2013, representing European data for 2010.
GR2 (Government): And let me cite two sentences only.
GR2 (Government): In most European countries, less than 1% of births took place at home.
GR2 (Government): In England, this figure was 2.5%.
GR2 (Government): In Wales, 3.7.
GR2 (Government): In Iceland, 1.8.
GR2 (Government): And Scotland, 1.4.
GR2 (Government): In the Netherlands, where home births have been a usual option for women, with uncomplicated pregnancies, 16.3% of all births occurred at home.
GR2 (Government): This is, however, a substantial change from 2004, when this proportion exceeded 30%.
GR2 (Government): And the very last sentence.
GR2 (Government): I would like to brought your attention to the fact that Czech Republic, according to EuroPeristat data, has that relevant early neonatal mortality, 1 per 1,000.
GR2 (Government): England and Wales, 1.9.
GR2 (Government): And the Netherlands, 2.5 in the year 2010.
Mark Villiger (JudgeP): Thank you Mr Velebil. I now call Mr Zahumenský.
AP1 (Applicant): I would like to directly pass the floor to Mr. Hrishi.
AP2 (Applicant): Dear Mr. President, honourable members of the court, first of all, in reply to queries
AP2 (Applicant): of the court and in reply to the governmental observations and their findings presented at this very moment, I would first of all pass the word to Ms. Pavlikova to answer all
AP2 (Applicant): the questions relating to medical statistics and the expert data. Then I will refer to
AP2 (Applicant): you back with replies to the question of Judge Nussbauger and with some of other points which were raised by the government. So I feel part of the word to Ms. Pavlikova first.
Mark Villiger (JudgeP): Please.
AP3 (Applicant): Dear Mr. President, honorable judges,
AP3 (Applicant): I'd like to point out some discrepancies or complement the data provided by Mr. Bellebill.
AP3 (Applicant): First of all, I want to state that those discussed adverse situations, like abruption of placenta or prolapse of the nuchal cord, were also documented very meticulously by a German organization who is collecting data for almost 12 years of home birth.
AP3 (Applicant): And out of this data, it is completely clear that these adverse effects, adverse situations, occur at home in one half or in one third of situations than documented in the Czech Republic.
AP3 (Applicant): So in absence of different interventions, which is also proved by international studies, those adverse situations occur much rarely.
AP3 (Applicant): And there is plenty of time to assess the risks and transfer the woman to the hospital.
AP3 (Applicant): It is true that there is a lot of transfers during home birth.
AP3 (Applicant): It's higher for a primipare, for the women who will give birth for the first time.
AP3 (Applicant): It's very low for women who give birth for a second or higher time.
AP3 (Applicant): On the other hand, most of the transfers are not in a hurry.
AP3 (Applicant): They are normally performed by a car of the family or of the midwife.
AP3 (Applicant): And based on this German data, only 5% of these transfers are urgent.
AP3 (Applicant): And they occur in 10 to 20 minutes to the hospital, where there is good communications with the hospital.
AP3 (Applicant): And the hospital is prepared for receiving the woman in need.
AP3 (Applicant): And so the time between the situation and between the medical intervention is not much higher than if it occurred in the hospital.
AP3 (Applicant): Secondly, I'd like to point out three points from the article of Mr. Valleville, which
AP3 (Applicant): was published last year.
AP3 (Applicant): And it states that consensual acceptance of home birth is conditioned by the exclusion of individual risks, presence of qualified personnel, and availability of emergency transfer to a hospital.
AP3 (Applicant): And those three points are an integrated part and working part of many health systems, many health care systems.
AP3 (Applicant): And a lot of those are presenting similar perinatal results as the Czech Republic.
AP3 (Applicant): Let me state also that the perinatal results are not, well, the home births are not the only thing that contributes to perinatal results.
AP3 (Applicant): There is a lot of different aspects, like the homogeneity of the society.
AP3 (Applicant): In the states where there is a lot of immigrants who have problems understanding and getting to the health care, the perinatal results are higher just by this situation.
AP3 (Applicant): Also, the Czech Republic prides in very extensive perinatal screening for anomalies in babies.
AP3 (Applicant): And while the numbers of invasive perinatal tests is almost double than, for example, in UK or Sweden, all those numbers affect the perinatal results, not only the allowance or forbidden of the home births.
AP3 (Applicant): Let me state that there is no thing such as the unique best health care system.
AP3 (Applicant): Very different systems can provide similar perinatal results.
AP3 (Applicant): And there is no need for fear that the change of system, the change of allowing the women to give birth at home with the regulations, court regulations, would lead to worsening of the Czech perinatal results.
Mark Villiger (JudgeP): Thank you, Mr. Pavlíková.
Mark Villiger (JudgeP): Mr. Hořejší, please.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, on behalf of the applicants,
AP2 (Applicant): I will now refer to the additional query of Judge Nussberg regarding the higher education of the applicants.
AP2 (Applicant): First of all, we need to point out that that's rather high education, which was at the university level in the case of the applicants.
AP2 (Applicant): It's not a must in Czech Republic for women to opt for home delivery.
AP2 (Applicant): On the other hand, in Czech Republic, this is quite logical.
AP2 (Applicant): The thing is that a usual woman, irrespective of her education, is confronted with a health care system which provides care during the woman's pregnancies.
AP2 (Applicant): And in such first contact, they meet an obstetrician.
AP2 (Applicant): And therefore, the first clinch with the system occurs on the woman and obstetrician level.
AP2 (Applicant): Therefore, at this point, and I believe in all Western countries, the obstetrician, as a qualified medic, is to provide unbiased and all informations regarding possibilities for the woman to give her birth.
AP2 (Applicant): Therefore, such a woman, irrespective of any level of education, should be informed at all about her possibilities as to deliver at maternity hospital or midwife center or perhaps even at home, subject to an assistant or midwife.
AP2 (Applicant): However, this works only on a formal level in Czech Republic where there is an obligation of all medical personnel to provide informed consent and to ask for informed consent from patients.
AP2 (Applicant): This doesn't happen in Czech Republic.
AP2 (Applicant): And therefore, women in Czech Republic are not informed about their possibilities, about risks, and about all other aspects of their pregnancies and their birth given.
AP2 (Applicant): That's the question regarding the education.
AP2 (Applicant): Next, I would like to follow Mr. Shorm's comments regarding
AP2 (Applicant): to finding of the Constitutional Court regarding the case of Ivana Kerens-Marková.
AP2 (Applicant): Incidentally, I was defendant, Mrs. Kerens-Marková,
AP2 (Applicant): and therefore, I guess I'm quite qualified to give a reply.
AP2 (Applicant): I agree with the government that the proceedings at a constitutional court deal primarily with procedures, procedures fault of common courts.
AP2 (Applicant): And basically, they deal with the question whether a fair trial requirement was observed or not.
AP2 (Applicant): On the other hand, it's quite extraordinary that while dealing basically with the formal aspects of a fair trial, the constitutional court found it necessary also to give a word regarding the possibilities of enjoying assisted home birth or not, because it was for the first time when such a question appeared at so high a level of Czech judicial system.
AP2 (Applicant): As was already said by the court, the answer to ask whether the choice of mothers should be limited to maternity hospitals only or whether there should be broader margin of options for women to choose is quite clear and was quoted by the court.
AP2 (Applicant): I will end by a few remarks regarding safety in general, because I understand that that's an underlying question for all two cases and is also emphasized by the government.
AP2 (Applicant): It needs to be said that question of child and woman safety during pregnancy and delivery is basically a question of the whole system set up, of the whole health care provision system, and that there may be several systems of such health care provision.
AP2 (Applicant): However, given that there are, namely in the Western Europe, systems that allow the mothers to choose home birth or birth in midwife centers or in maternity hospitals with similar results or even better results in case of Iceland than Czech Republic, it clearly shows that allowing for an assisted home birth does not represent any additional risks.
AP2 (Applicant): By means of an end, I would like to point out to a certain criteria which may be found in splitting those states allowing for home birth and those who do not.
AP2 (Applicant): It's quite similar at this very court that a similar type of complaints come from countries of the former Soviet Union bloc.
AP2 (Applicant): Therefore, it's not a question of the Soviet Union but of the former Soviet Union bloc, therefore, from countries which are still transferring from the post-authoritarian set up of legal system and requirements to the values of the democratic Western states.
AP2 (Applicant): Therefore, what the applicants see is that basically it is the post-authoritarian states who tend to refrain from providing women with a possibility of choice while the Western states do that without any problems and without any adverse impacts on the safety both for mother and child.
Mark Villiger (JudgeP): Thank you, Mr. Hořejší.
Mark Villiger (JudgeP): We have now come to the end of the hearing.
Mark Villiger (JudgeP): I thank the parties for their interventions and for their answers to the Court's questions.
Mark Villiger (JudgeP): The Court will now deliberate on the admissibility and merits.
Mark Villiger (JudgeP): The judgment will be delivered later.
Mark Villiger (JudgeP): The parties will be informed of the date of the delivery.
Mark Villiger (JudgeP): I declare the hearing closed.
András Sajó (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and others versus Bosnia and Herzegovina.
András Sajó (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on 21st January 2011 under Article 34 of the Convention by a religious community, Brčko branch of the Islamic community of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and three non-governmental organizations from the Brčko district of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Bošnjak Cultural Society Preporod, the Bošnjak Charity Association Merhamet, and the Council of Bošnjak Intellectuals.
András Sajó (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the fourth section of the court, pursuant to Rule 52.1 of the Rules of the Court.
András Sajó (JudgeP): On 13th October 2015, a chamber constituted within that section delivered a judgment in the case.
András Sajó (JudgeP): On 8th January 2016, 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 14th March 2016.
András Sajó (JudgeP): On June 16th 2016, the President of the Grand Chamber granted leave to the Centre de Recherche d'Etudes sur les Droits Fondamentaux, CREDOF, and a blueprint for free speech to submit written comments as a third party by virtue of Rule 44.3 of the Rules of the Court.
András Sajó (JudgeP): The government are represented by the agent, Mrs. Monika Mijić,
András Sajó (JudgeP): assisted by Mrs. Sandra Malešić, assistant agent,
András Sajó (JudgeP): and by Mr. Peđa  Đurasović and Mrs. Dragana Tešić, advisors.
András Sajó (JudgeP): The applicants are represented by Mr. Osman Mulahalilović,
András Sajó (JudgeP): lawyer practicing in Bričko, who is assisted by Mrs. Lejla Murselović,
András Sajó (JudgeP): Mr. Ibrahim Šadić, and Mr. Emir Fazlić, advisors.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Mr. Sabahudin Ravkić, on behalf of the first applicant, is also present.
András Sajó (JudgeP): I welcome the representatives in the name of the Court.
András Sajó (JudgeP): I would also like to welcome a visiting delegation of judges from the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
András Sajó (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages in the Court, English and French, interpreting into Bosnian has been authorized for the benefit of the delegation from Bosnia and Herzegovina.
András Sajó (JudgeP): That interpretation is not arranged by the Court, and no transcription of the oral translation will be included in the official record of the proceedings.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Having consulted the agent of the government and the representative of the applicants, I have determined the order of addresses as follows.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Mrs. Murselović, for the applicants, will speak first.
András Sajó (JudgeP): And then, Mrs. Mijić, for the government.
András Sajó (JudgeP): I call Mrs. Murselović.
András Sajó (JudgeP): You have the floor.
AP1 (Applicant): Honorable President of the Chamber, Honorable Judges, Honorable Members of the team of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Honorable Interveners and other present.
AP1 (Applicant): We will present our submission in four parts.
AP1 (Applicant): Part one, circumstances of the case.
AP1 (Applicant): We fully maintain the claims presented in the application and all submissions delivered to this court.
AP1 (Applicant): The Brsko district of B&H is a small local community with population of approximately 80,000.
AP1 (Applicant): This local community has its assembly, which passes all laws except those which are under the exclusive jurisdiction of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as in line with the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
AP1 (Applicant): The Brsko district has a local government.
AP1 (Applicant): The local government does not have a department in charge of judiciary.
AP1 (Applicant): Laws in field of judiciary are proposed by the judicial commission, the members of which are the president of the basic court, the president of the appellate court, the chief prosecutor of the Brsko district prosecutor's office, the Brsko district public attorney, the head of the legal aid office, a judge of the constitutional court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and two citizens.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, presidents of courts, judges, propose laws by which they judge after laws are adopted.
AP1 (Applicant): The judicial authorities are comprised of the basic court of Brsko as the first instance court and the appellate court of Brsko as the second and third instance court.
AP1 (Applicant): During the disputable period, Brsko was under the international supervision established on the basis of the Dayton Peace Accords for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
AP1 (Applicant): A panel for selection of director of the radio Brsko was set up in Brsko.
AP1 (Applicant): Mrs. Mara Zivkovic was proposed to the panel
AP1 (Applicant): as a candidate for the director of the radio Brsko.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant sent a letter of limited and confidential extent to the mayor of Brsko, the president of the assembly of Brsko district and to the supervisor of Brsko.
AP1 (Applicant): In their letter, they opposed to the proposal for the selection of Mrs. Zivkovic as the director.
AP1 (Applicant): Mrs. Zivkovic filed a lawsuit against the applicants.
AP1 (Applicant): In her lawsuit, she claimed that the applicants had issued a public statement in form of a letter.
AP1 (Applicant): She requested by the defamation lawsuit to be paid the sum amounting to 50,000 convertible marks, approximately 25,000 euros.
AP1 (Applicant): And she requested the judgment to be published in media.
AP1 (Applicant): In her statement before the basic court of Brsko as the first instance court, she stated that she had applied for the director, as well as that the mayor of the Brsko district annulled the vacancy notice after the disputable letter appeared and that she does not know who delivered the information from the disputable letter to the public.
AP1 (Applicant): The basic court of Brsko rejected the lawsuit.
AP1 (Applicant): The appellate court of Brsko as the second instance court adopted the appeal of Mrs. Zivkovic,
AP1 (Applicant): opened a hearing, and examined evidence.
AP1 (Applicant): This court also examined the evidence which was not proposed by the parties in the proceeding.
AP1 (Applicant): The appellate court of Brsko adopted the lawsuit for defamation compensation amounting to 2,500 convertible marks, which is approximately 1,250 euros, and ordered publishing of the judgment in media.
AP1 (Applicant): Based on the written evidence in the court file of the appellate court of Brsko, it can be clearly established that Mrs. Zivkovic did not apply for the position
AP1 (Applicant): of the director.
AP1 (Applicant): The mayor did not annul the vacancy notice because of the disputable letter of the applicants.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicants did not make the disputable letter public.
AP1 (Applicant): They delivered the letter to the said institutions in a private correspondence.
AP1 (Applicant): The appellate court of Brsko arbitrarily assessed the evidence.
AP1 (Applicant): As in line with domestic laws, no appeal or revision can be presented against this decision of the appellate court.
AP1 (Applicant): The only legal remedy is the appeal with the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an alternative legal remedy.
AP1 (Applicant): The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as according to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, has no authority to examine whether facts were arbitrarily established before the appellate court of Brsko district or whether provisions of material and procedural laws were arbitrarily applied.
AP1 (Applicant): Bosnia and Herzegovina, by its constitution, is a complex state.
AP1 (Applicant): It consisted of two entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska, and of the Brsko district.
AP1 (Applicant): The Brsko district has the basic court as the first instance court of general jurisdiction in all criminal proceedings, including even war crimes, all civil lawsuits, and administrative lawsuits.
AP1 (Applicant): The appellate court is solely a second instance court which decides on appeals against the decisions of the first instance court.
AP1 (Applicant): The appellate court, as a third instance court, decides on revisions against its own decisions.
AP1 (Applicant): In the disputable period of time, the appellate court had two judges for domain of criminal law, four judges for domain of civil and administrative lawsuits, and president of the court.
AP1 (Applicant): According to the Amendment 1 to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Brsko district is under exclusive sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
AP1 (Applicant): The entities have the supreme courts.
AP1 (Applicant): The supreme courts of the entities have no jurisdiction over courts in Brsko.
AP1 (Applicant): Bosnia and Herzegovina does not have a supreme court as the court of general jurisdiction.
AP1 (Applicant): Bosnia and Herzegovina has the court of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a specialized criminal court and court of a very limited jurisdiction in litigation proceedings.
AP1 (Applicant): The court of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not have the authority to reassess decisions of the appellate court of Brsko.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, Bosnia and Herzegovina is not performing the judicial authorities over courts in the Brsko district.
AP1 (Applicant): Part 2, violation of right to fair trial under Article 6 of European Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant cited violations of the right to fair trial in their application and submissions.
AP1 (Applicant): We believe that the appellate court of the Brsko district of Bosnia and Herzegovina arbitrarily assessed the written evidence in the disputable judgment.
AP1 (Applicant): The appellate court of Brsko, page 5, paragraph 3, stated that Mrs. Zivkovic applied
AP1 (Applicant): for the position of the director.
AP1 (Applicant): Based on the letter of the Brsko district government from September 28, 2005, and attachments to that letter, the court could have established that Mrs. Zivkovic did not
AP1 (Applicant): apply for the position of the director.
AP1 (Applicant): The letter from September 28, 2005 was in the court file of the appellate court of Brsko at the time the disputable judgment was made.