TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): The court should evaluate more thoroughly the certification of suitability of the structure issued by the health authority of Palermo on the occasion of the investigation carried out on 21 September, the day after the fire.
GR1 (Government): What stated therein about the suitability of the center the day after the fire, a fortiori demonstrate the suitability of the structure in the days before, during the applicant's stay.
GR1 (Government): In this context, primarily intended for aid and assistance, the presence of the security forces had not police purposes, but was and still is aimed exclusively at preventing self-inflicted injuries, disorders and incidents in the building, very often committed by immigrants for the sole purpose of having an opportunity to avoid checks and flee to unknown place, as well as preventing incidents with the local inhabitants, considered to be extremely likely, as demonstrated by the evolution of the facts of the case.
GR1 (Government): This police presence was clearly aimed at ensuring the safety and well-being of the immigrants themselves and of the locals, as well as maintaining public order.
GR1 (Government): Indeed, on 20 September, just two days after the applicant's arrival and during their stay in the center, a large group of Tunisians met the world during the individual talk of their condition of unlawful immigrants and of the imminent repatriation for the purpose to postpone their return started a fire of large dimensions.
GR1 (Government): The immigrants left the property and reached the center of the island, creating high tensions with residents, which resulted in disorders of 21 September, resolved thanks to the intervention of security forces.
GR1 (Government): Following the fire and the partial unfit condition of the center, the authorities, given the unavailability of other facilities on national territory, all already occupied due to great immigration flows of the time, found that a quick transfer aboard of a three cruises ship anchored in the port of Palermo was the only possible alternative to provide immediate shelter to the guests of the center and at the same time to be able to continue the operations just started in the center of the first assistance and identification of such huge amount of persons.
GR1 (Government): Many of the activities in progress, like the continuing identification procedure, were performed in favor of the immigrants on land.
GR1 (Government): As demonstrated by facts, the applicants, like all immigrants who have reached Italy by sea, have been rescued from the danger of death, welcomed, assisted, cared for, identified, heard about their individual needs and organized in such a way to minimize their stay on the territory and to return home in the shortest possible time.
GR1 (Government): Clearly, the fulfillment of these procedures for each individual immigrant, multiplied by the large numbers of immigrants arriving at the same time in the same place, normally took a minimum of time, very often aggravated by the poorly collaborative attitude of the immigrants themselves.
GR1 (Government): Additionally, in the Eastern case, all these procedures have been further readily aggravated by the fire of 20 September and the disorders of 21st and by the consequent need to organize differently the guests and transfer them as well for their safety in view of their repertory to Tunisia, according to the agreement between the two countries.
GR1 (Government): Thus, the overall performance of the first reception activities started in the center and then continued on the ships required a minimum of technical execution time, further extended cause of the incidents deliberately determined by the immigrants to who therefore should be given the responsibility of the extension of their stay beyond the minimum needed.
GR1 (Government): In view of their possible repatriation, the applicants underwent the second phase of identification procedures as set out by the Italy-Tunisia agreement, having an individual talk, an additional one from the arrival with the Tunisian Council for the final ascertainment of their nationality and possible existence of a personal obstacles to repatriation.
GR1 (Government): The authenticity, effectiveness, and genuine individual nature of these talks with Tunisian authorities has been demonstrated by fact for circumstances.
GR1 (Government): The documents attached by this party allow that not all immigrants in the list of those previously identified by Italian authorities in the first phase of procedure that never been repatriated because of questions of nationality, age or other impediments.
GR1 (Government): As a matter of fact, at the end of the individual talk, some immigrants ascertained as not Tunisian national were not repatriated.
GR1 (Government): And another immigrant registered as born 1992 was ascertained as born 1994 and not repatriated to his special position minor accompanied.
GR1 (Government): On the basis of the assessment of individual position, the questura of agrigento, having ascertained that the applicants were third country national just rescued at sea while unlawfully approaching the Italian frontier and not asylum seeker, released individual removal orders for each of them, duly reasoned and translated into Arabic.
GR1 (Government): Such measures of the further full man were provided by the Italian law and well matched the condition of the instant applicants.
GR1 (Government): Aliens who having unlawfully entered the national territory have been temporarily admitted to stay for the mere purpose of aid and assistance.
GR1 (Government): On the lawfulness of such measures against the applicants, the government recalls the assessment of national authorities that in this respect, all having evaluating all the circumstances affecting concrete situation deemed in any case timely with the applicants repatriation.
GR1 (Government): The extremely short time spent by the instant applicants in the territory first at Santa and then on ship is not evilly remotely comparable to a state of a limitation of personal freedom and even less to a state of a detention as intended by the convention.
GR1 (Government): The applicants seen their landing at new information about their position and many opportunities to see their personal condition individually assessed by the authorities and to make personal requests.
GR1 (Government): Then each removal order issued against each of them was based on conclusion that they were irregular immigrants.
GR1 (Government): In light of that, the government claims it's right to see a knowledge of the diligence with which had proceeded to repatriation of the applicants in compliance with the principles of the convention as a strongly disputes the alleged existence in the case of a collective expulsion under article four, protocol four.
GR1 (Government): As to the legal conclusions of the court of the government, first of all contest that very short stay of the applicants at the center, only two days and on board the ships just few days more could be qualified as detention or deprivation of the personal freedom under article five of the convention.
GR1 (Government): The government reminds according to the court's case law in order to determine whether someone has been deprived of his liberty within the meaning of article five, the starting point must be the is concrete situation and account must be taken over a range of criteria such as type, duration, effects, and manner of implementation of such measure.
GR1 (Government): The Garner challenges the correct interpretation of the facts in the light of conventional principles as well the inappropriate use of some sources of general information on the center and the failure instead to take into due consideration fundamental aspects of the story.
GR1 (Government): The current deconstruction of the events set by the government in all its defenses has demonstrated that in the present case are missing all the factual requirements of a condition of a detention as set forth in the case law, properly recalled but inappropriately applied in decision.
GR1 (Government): Is a certainly missing the kind and the manner of implementation of the state concern since it's not inferable from facts any element of a cohesion but only a humanitarian activity in favor of the applicants who were rescued at sea, immediately refreshed, dressed and taken on the first mainland port nearest rescue operation place where they received the shelter, health monitoring, personal assistance and economic independence where they were identified one by one, heard individually their mother tongue by police operator and made aware of the opportunity to seek asylum or other international protection.
GR1 (Government): And possibly to be transferred to other state.
GR1 (Government): Is missing the duration of the stay since the applicant stay has been extremely limited over all nine and 12 days and it would have been far shorter if the Tunisian themselves hosted in the center had not started the fire and created an additional emergency in the emergency.
GR1 (Government): Is missing the effect since the applicants could freely move within the war perimeter of the structure and the opportunity to maintain social relationships with relatives at home, with the lawyers and all the operators present in the center.
GR1 (Government): The surveillance on the center and only preventive purpose aimed at prevention, criminal and harmful acts among them or against the local population such as the fire, the center and riot occurred during the applicant stay.
GR1 (Government): It's a strong government belief that it's admittedly not possible to speak in the Eastern case of deprivation of liberty under Article 5 on the strength of any one of these factors taken individually, neither cumulatively or in combination between them.
GR1 (Government): No other fail or standard Article 5 could be found in the case.
GR1 (Government): It cannot be found at the fact of a legal basis.
GR1 (Government): Such situation of first aid, reception, assistance and identification related to the rescue of immigrants as see are regulated by framework of rules.
GR1 (Government): Article 5 immigration, 10 immigration acts, implementation immigration acts, Article 14 immigration act providing that transfer to CA is ordered only when the full amount requires a supplementary investigation on identity or nationality of the immigrant or when additional time for the acquisition travel documents or regimental transportation is required.
GR1 (Government): But it was certainly not the instant case where in consideration of the facilitated repatriation procedures toward Tunisia, such activities of identification and issuing of travel documents were definitely much faster.
GR1 (Government): The government contested the court's assessment that international agreement between Italy and Tunisia about repatriation was not at time a capable legal basis.
GR1 (Government): In this respect, it must be noted that the object of this agreement was the strengthening of border controls by Tunisian authorities.
GR1 (Government): As provided by documents, all the Tunisians directed to Italy already the day after the signing were aware of the current procedures thanks to the information diligently spread within both countries through the institutional websites of Italian Ministry of Internal and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Tunisian government.
GR1 (Government): Simultaneously, other internet sites, Italian, French, Arabic, widely spread information.
GR1 (Government): Thus, it's not absolutely likely that the instant applicants having easy access to modern information instruments could not have news about the repatriation procedures which they could have been subjected having chosen to reach Italy by sea.
GR1 (Government): In any case, according to the agreement, the repatriation should occur in presence of the Tunisian consular authority and in compliance with the human rights and human dignity as it occurred in the instant case.
GR1 (Government): It cannot be found that the fact of information, the applicants already on their own aware of the legality of directions during their stay were further informed by the operators of the legality of their condition of irregular immigrants attempting to enter Italy and that they could have possibly subjected to an imminent repatriation.
GR1 (Government): It cannot be found that the fact of judicial scrutiny, the applicants as illegal immigrants rescued at sea were just as the instructor intended for aid that since the reception that would have been there, the minimum time needed if the immigrants had not started the fire in the center.
GR1 (Government): For this reason, in a first aid situation completely different from a state of deprivation of liberty is not required a judicial scrutiny by the law regulating it.
GR1 (Government): The government having demonstrated the absence of detention conditions also challenges the assessment of an alleged violation of Article 3.
GR1 (Government): The court is well aware of extraordinary humanitarian emergency experienced by Italy in 2011.
GR1 (Government): And although it gives note of that in the contested decision, however, it shows to have not adequately assess the impact that is unexpected.
GR1 (Government): A massive arrival of large numbers of immigrants has had on the reception system, which, however, and despite the difficulties, was still widely respectful of human rights of those involved.
GR1 (Government): The court has evaluated the center conditions only in the light of the reports drafted and the base of visits carried out much time before the facts.
GR1 (Government): Nor they have properly assessed that the presence in the center that according to the data mentioned in the sentence could accommodate up 1,000 persons did not result at all in a condition of very serious overcrowding.
GR1 (Government): According to the court's case law, an infringement of Article 3 can arise only if it's reached a minimum level of severity determined by the concurrent existence of multiple elements, such as duration, physical, and psychological effects, sex, health, condition, and context.
GR1 (Government): The dissenting judges have disseminated the well-centered decor of the question, corrected assessing the facts in the case in the light of conventional principle, and properly excluded a violation of Article 3 of lack of minimum threshold of gravity.
GR1 (Government): Defectual substances of the case nor individual need cumulatively assessed lead to outline a stain in human degrading condition and a conventional violation neither with reference to the center nor to the ship.
GR1 (Government): The applicants, adult males in good health, first of all, were in the center only two days and few others on the ship.
GR1 (Government): Have not lived overcrowded condition could freely move within interpropriety and access to food and sleeping rooms that were not cells but rooms adapted to the rest, having at their disposal the space of the wall structure, which even makes the court's reference to the regioning similar cases on detention conditions manifestly inappropriate.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, they have never been physical nor psychological abuse, nor any opposite evidence by the applicants.
GR1 (Government): At this point, it's evident that Italian state, which even in the emergency of the emergency with the utmost efforts has ensured to such a large number of immigrants are lawfully present on the territory, a comfortable short stay in view of their quick return home has never intended to inflict the applicants inhuman and degraded treatments.
GR1 (Government): But as it's well-known habits, it has always guaranteed to them aid, assistance, information, and definitely human rights.
GR1 (Government): Honorable judges arrived at the last, but absolutely not the least issue on the table.
GR1 (Government): This party represents to the court of the many perplexities and concerns about the decision and consideration carried out therein, also and not only with regard to an alleged existence of a collective expulsion in violation of Article 4, Protocol 4, that instead the government strongly and firmly contests.
GR1 (Government): The government recalls the court's case law whereby collective expulsion within the meaning of the Article 4 is to be understood as any measure compelling aliens as a group to leave a country, except where such a measure is taken on the basis of reason and objective examination of particular case of each individual alien in the group.
GR1 (Government): Thus, the fact that a number of aliens are subjected to similar decision, maybe even with deportation orders phrased in similar terms, does not in itself lead to the conclusion that there is a collective expulsion if each person concerned has been given the opportunity to put arguments against his expulsion to the competent authorities on individual basis.
GR1 (Government): The government strongly challenges the existence in the Eastern case of the collective expulsion requirements.
GR1 (Government): The applicants have not been repatriated as a group, and before the repatriation, they received an individual assessment of their personal situation.
GR1 (Government): That's why the government also challenges strongly the comparison between the experience of the applicants and the case concoct whereby the expulsion was based on the mere belonging of a specific ethnic group, and the repatriation was ordered within a police operation carried out after a long time from the entrance into the territory of the individual's concern.
GR1 (Government): The dissenting judges have correctly centered the question, finding that the Eastern case does not fall within any kind of collective expulsions, nor in the case of expulsion due to the mere belonging to a national ethnic or racial or religious group, neither in the case of a repatriation of a group as a whole without the pre-assessment of individual position of each individual alien as Irsha Sharifi.
GR1 (Government): Huge attention was paid to the individual position of each applicant undergone to individual talks with police operator interpreter to personal identification according to repatriation producer under the agreement between Italy and Tunisia.
GR1 (Government): The circumstances, the teacher repatriation order did not report other facts unless the personal data depends on the fact that in preliminary stages of the procedure, the applicants have never represented even having the opportunity to do it, anything special worthy of a specific attention.
GR1 (Government): On the other hand, the applicants until now have never alleged to be in a real condition of asylum seeker or to be entitled to receive an international protection, a crucial aspect of the question.
GR1 (Government): As the court teaches, the fact that a number of aliens are subject to similar decision does not in itself lead to a conclusion that there is a collective expulsion.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, Tunisia at the time could be surely considered a country respectful of human rights, as it even says by court in Al-Anji, and as inferable for the concrete experience of the applicants who after their return to Tunisia have not suffered any persecution or other attack to their human rights.
GR1 (Government): Lastly, under the angle of the articles 13 of the convention, individual removal order issued each against the applicant were drafted in Arabic contain the warning of the possible remedy of the application before the judicial departure.
GR1 (Government): The applicants complained of the absence of a remedy against such measure is manifestly groundless, even more in consideration of the fact that the applicants, even after the measure, had continued to have contact with Italian lawyers.
GR1 (Government): But instead of opposing the domestic remedies available against the order and possibly bringing a subsequent action, have directly lodged the case before the court in violation of the principle of subsidiarity.
GR1 (Government): Conclusively, the government reminds the court that Italy, with intense and constant commitment, carries out the immigrants rescue operations, always faced with humanity, experience, and professionalism on the part of all the operators involved in such first aid activities.
GR1 (Government): The court is certainly aware that these operations still in progress only now with the operator union participation allowed and still allowed to save a countless amount of lives.
GR1 (Government): Mare Nostrum, strongly desired and supported by the Italian government, is one of the examples of the Italy's commitment in preventing the recurrence of a further disaster in the sea.
GR1 (Government): For these reasons, the Italian government firmly disputes the judgment in issue, find that it does not do justice to all the efforts, human and economic, to the commitment and humanity used to address the immigration flows phenomenon, still of extraordinary dimension, and nevertheless always endless in the full respect of human rights of all individuals involved.
GR1 (Government): So the Italian government, requesting the annulment of the decision of the chamber on all counts, not intends only defend itself from the groundlessness of the applicant's complaints, but above all, it intends to defend its right and duty, legal and moral, to continue to save human lives.
GR1 (Government): Thank you for attention.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Merci pour votre intervention.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Maintenant, j'invite les juges de la grande chambre qui les souhaite à poser leurs questions au parti.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Juge Møse.
Erik Møse (Judge): My first two questions are about Article 3, and they concern the government.
Erik Møse (Judge): The government have stressed the challenges it faced in connection with the huge immigrant flow in 2011.
Erik Møse (Judge): And now, in your oral intervention, you even gave up some figures.
Erik Møse (Judge): You said that there were 51,000 in 2011, of which 26,000 came from Tunis.
Erik Møse (Judge): These were the figures you referred to just now.
Erik Møse (Judge): Now, in the pleadings in this case, in writing, it has been argued that the crisis or the flow, the influx in September 2011 was not really so unexpected because there had been similar flows previously.
Erik Møse (Judge): Do you consider that a valued argument or not?
Erik Møse (Judge): That was my first question to the government concerning Article 3.
Erik Møse (Judge): My next question to the government concerning Article 3 relates to the conditions at the center in September.
Erik Møse (Judge): And there you have stressed that the chamber has put too much emphasis on reports from 2009 and May 2011.
Erik Møse (Judge): That was when these two visits by the Senate and the parliamentary assembly delegation took place.
Erik Møse (Judge): You say it's unfair.
Erik Møse (Judge): May I ask you, what is your view, if you should be a little bit more precise, what were then the exact conditions in September 2009?
Erik Møse (Judge): And I know that you have indicated this, but a little bit more detail.
Erik Møse (Judge): Three elements as regards overcrowding, as regards the way meals were being digested, and as regards sanitary facilities.
Erik Møse (Judge): These were the three elements I focused on.
Erik Møse (Judge): These were the questions to the government.
Erik Møse (Judge): Now I have questions to both parties.
Erik Møse (Judge): But I will start here to take as a point of departure the government's emphasis on the fact that there were two phases.
Erik Møse (Judge): First, there was a compulsory individual talk.
Erik Møse (Judge): And this question relates, of course, to Protocol 4, Article 4.
Erik Møse (Judge): That's what we are in now.
Erik Møse (Judge): And you stressed that there were two phases in the interviewing process, so to speak.
Erik Møse (Judge): The first was the compulsory individual talk with the identification of the immigrant by personnel of the police operators and an interpreter.
Erik Møse (Judge): When it comes to that first phase, what was the focus of the conversations with the individuals during that first round?