TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR2 (Government): And it did.
GR2 (Government): But even if the agreement could not prevent from going to the labor judge, the agreement in itself proved that the person recognized the participation in the thefts.
GR2 (Government): And that was ratified by the higher jurisdiction of the High Court of Catalonia.
GR2 (Government): We must say finally that the agreement of both parties, neither of both parties, could be bound other than by good faith.
GR2 (Government): The employer could go to the criminal bench.
GR2 (Government): But if the notitia criminis wasn't given to the criminal bench, the criminal bench couldn't act.
GR2 (Government): On the other side, the workers could go to the labor judges.
GR2 (Government): But if they didn't, the labor judges would not have entered into the issue.
GR2 (Government): So they were in an equal footing.
GR2 (Government): Both could go to the judge if they wanted.
GR2 (Government): But they preferred to sign the agreements.
GR2 (Government): And some did, and some they didn't.
GR2 (Government): Thank you very much for your attention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. León Cavero.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Et nous en arrivons au terme de l'audience.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je déclare ouverte l'audience publique sur le fond de l'affaire Bédat contre Suisse.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): L'affaire a été introduite devant la Cour le 7 novembre 2008 par un ressortissant suisse, M. Arnaud Bédat,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Elle a été attribuée à la deuxième section de la Cour conformément à l'article 52, paragraphe 1 du règlement de la Cour.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le 3 juin 2014, la Chambre a déclaré la requête recevable et a adopté un arrêt dans cette affaire.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): L'arrêt de la Chambre a été prononcé le 1er juillet 2014.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le 29 septembre 2014, le gouvernement a demandé le renvoi de l'affaire devant la Grande Chambre conformément à l'article 43 de la Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Et cette demande a été acceptée par le Collège de la Grande Chambre le 17 novembre 2014.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le gouvernement défendeur est représenté par son agent, M. Frank Schürmann, chef de l'Unité Protection Internationale
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): des Droits de l'Homme à l'Office fédéral de la Justice, assisté de Mme Dominique Steiger Leuba et de M.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Folco Galli et Patrick Rohner, conseillers.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le requérant est représenté par M.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Charles Poncet et par M.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): David Hofman, conseil.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Il assiste également à l'audience.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je salue également la délégation de juges et de procureurs turcs en visite à la Cour.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Nous entendrons successivement M.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Poncet et Hoffman pour le requérant, et puis M. Schürmann pour le gouvernement.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je dois expliquer qu'en Suisse, de l'interprétation dans les deux langues officielles de la Cour, l'anglais et le français, l'interprétation en turc et en russe a été autorisée au profit respectivement de la délégation de juges et de procureurs turcs en visite à la Cour, ainsi que d'un groupe de visiteurs du European Human Rights Advocacy Centre London, qui assistent à cette audience.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ces interprétations ne sont pas assurées par la Cour et ne feront donc pas partie de l'enregistrement officiel de la procédure.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Alors la parole est à M. Poncet.
AP1 (Applicant): on January 28, 2015, in this very room, as the case of Perinçek versus Switzerland came to discussion, my learned opponent, Dr. Schuman,
AP1 (Applicant): stated the following in his introduction.
AP1 (Applicant): I quote from the French original.
AP1 (Applicant): During the 40 years since the ratification of the convention, Switzerland has known a significant number, un nombre certain, of findings of violations of freedom of expression, nine final judgments in total.
AP1 (Applicant): Then Dr. Schuman continued and said,
AP1 (Applicant): these, meaning eight of the nine cases that he was referring to, have always been peculiar or even unique cases.
AP1 (Applicant): Members of the court, Dr. Schuman is right.
AP1 (Applicant): Switzerland has a complex and difficult history with and relation to freedom of expression, generally speaking, and consequently, Article 10 of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): In no other country than Switzerland would a TV program debating the pros and cons of the country's behavior during the Second World War, 40, 50, 60 years before, be outlawed judicially, because somehow the onlookers would not have been put in a position to make up their own mind by watching the program.
AP1 (Applicant): And they took a unanimous decision of this court in 2006.
AP1 (Applicant): On September 21, 2006, more precisely, I'm referring to the Monarch case, of course.
AP1 (Applicant): In no other country than Switzerland would a government come to this court and submit to the court that an interview broadcast on TV in which the person interviewed couldn't be recognized because his face had been erased, the color of his hair had been changed, his voice had been altered, and the premises on which the interview took place were anonymous, making it impossible to connect him with anything that could help identifying him in the microcosm of Switzerland.
AP1 (Applicant): But still, this would somehow have constituted a violation of Article 8 of the convention, the respect for private and family life.
AP1 (Applicant): I'm referring to the Haldeman decision of February 24, 2015.
AP1 (Applicant): And to conclude this short enumeration, of course, in no other country than Switzerland would some alleged scientist wishing to expose the pros and cons, the benefits and the risks of cooking your food in a microwave oven have to come to the Court of Human Rights twice before being able to do so.
AP1 (Applicant): The government sees three issues in the July 1, 2014 decision which, in its view, call for a decision of the Grand Chamber.
AP1 (Applicant): The first is an issue of burden of proof.
AP1 (Applicant): The second is an issue of the government's freedom to choose its means.
AP1 (Applicant): And the third one is an issue of subsidiarity.
AP1 (Applicant): Quoting again from the French summary of my learned opponent's presentation of these submissions, the first submission made to this court, the first question asked to this court can be worded as follows.
AP1 (Applicant): Do the national authorities have the burden of proving that the information published effectively harmed the interests protected by the secrecy of the criminal investigation?
AP1 (Applicant): That's the issue of the burden of proof.
AP1 (Applicant): The second issue is, the second question, is to what extent is a state exercising its criminal jurisdiction entitled to choose freely the means by which it seeks to ensure that the defendant is presumed innocent and that his right to private and family life is respected?
AP1 (Applicant): And finally, the third issue, the subsidiarity issue, is were there any serious reasons for the court to substitute its own assessment of the necessity of the interference to that of the national court?
AP1 (Applicant): Members of the court expressed in this manner the three questions put to you by the Swiss government appear to be eminently reasonable.
AP1 (Applicant): However, let us make no mistake here.
AP1 (Applicant): What the Swiss government is asking this court to do is to revisit, to change, and to redefine the constant, well-settled, and well-established case law of this court as to the relationship between Article X, on the one hand, and the necessary requirements to protect the authority and the impartiality of the judiciary.
AP1 (Applicant): The Swiss government wants you to revisit and change what has been your case law since at least the days of the Sunday-timed decision of April 1979, 26th of April, and a decision, a policy, a jurisprudence that has been confirmed several times.
AP1 (Applicant): And with regard to the so-called secret de l'instruction, the confidentiality of criminal investigations in countries that see law countries that have a system of criminal investigation organized in this manner, I am referring, of course, to the Dupuy decision of 2007, and more specifically of June 7, 2007.
AP1 (Applicant): So that is what is at issue here.
AP1 (Applicant): The issue is whether or not this court wants to take a step back and revisit Sunday times and all the decisions that follow.
AP1 (Applicant): The government bases its demonstration on the premise, on the allegation, that what took place on July 8, 2003 in Lausanne was, to quote the words used by the federal tribunal, the Swiss federal tribunal, it was nothing more than a fatal road accident.
AP1 (Applicant): Well, with all due respect to our opponents, this view of the essential facts of the case is unpersuasive.
AP1 (Applicant): Members of the court, Lausanne is a city with a population of about 150,000 people, a little less.
AP1 (Applicant): The Grand Pont, the Great Bridge, the big bridge, as its name suggests, is probably the main architectural feature of the town, with the possible exception of the cathedral.
AP1 (Applicant): The Grand Pont crosses the valley of the Fion and makes it possible to drive from the east to the west of the city.
AP1 (Applicant): When Mr. Boutifar ran amok on July 8, 2003,
AP1 (Applicant): he was on the Grand Pont.
AP1 (Applicant): He drove on the curb, and he started knocking down pedestrians, running them over, sending some to plunge to their death at the bottom of the bridge.
AP1 (Applicant): And in doing so, he killed three people, and he wounded eight.
AP1 (Applicant): Imagine for a second, ladies and gentlemen, the same thing happening in London, which has a population of 8 million instead of the tiny 150,000 of Lausanne.
AP1 (Applicant): Imagine what would happen if a driver ran amok, climbed on the curb of London Bridge, and started knocking down pedestrians, killing them, running them over, throwing them to plunge to their death off the bridge.
AP1 (Applicant): In the process, killing 160 and wounding more than 400.
AP1 (Applicant): Would anybody in the judiciary of the United Kingdom put to this court that this was nothing more than a fatal road accident?
AP1 (Applicant): The government case is based on this weak foundation, and it then submits to you the first issue, which is the issue of the burden of proof.
AP1 (Applicant): Should the state have the burden to prove that the interference was necessary for the legitimate purposes of Article 10?
AP1 (Applicant): Well, expressed in this way, put in this way, the answer to the question is obviously no.
AP1 (Applicant): But that is not the issue with all respect to our opponents.
AP1 (Applicant): The issue is if and when an infringement has been established, as it clearly has here, then does it behoove the government to show to the satisfaction of this court that the measures taken were indeed necessary to protect the authority and the impartiality of the judiciary?
AP1 (Applicant): That is the issue.
AP1 (Applicant): And if we apply the proper test, it is absolutely clear that the Swiss judiciary has failed in establishing anything resembling to a demonstration of a social need here.
AP1 (Applicant): Please do not forget that Mr. Boutifar was
AP1 (Applicant): tried in the ordinary criminal court of Lausanne in November 2005, and that the Court of Appeal, the Court of Cassation of the Canton of Vaux, issued its decision in June 2006.
AP1 (Applicant): Well, these two courts reached diametrically opposed conclusions.
AP1 (Applicant): The criminal court said it was aggravated murder, assassina, first degree murder, to use the American terminology.
AP1 (Applicant): The Court of Appeal said Boutifar could not stand trial because he was incapable of standing trial.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, he was found irresponsible.
AP1 (Applicant): And committed to an asylum where he is to this day.
AP1 (Applicant): Members of the court, that in itself shows how preposterous it would be to claim that Arnaud Bédard's article would have had any influence on the judiciary.
AP1 (Applicant): It had none.
AP1 (Applicant): And ad abundant di causa, let me also observe that if you read the article, as I'm sure you have, nothing in that article could conceivably have any impact on the independence, on the authority, on the impartiality of the judiciary.
AP1 (Applicant): The article talks about how Boutifar wants to make phone calls.
AP1 (Applicant): He wants to talk to his brother.
AP1 (Applicant): He wants to change lawyers.
AP1 (Applicant): He's trying to be released for a couple of days.
AP1 (Applicant): None of that has any relationship whatsoever with the alleged issue of whether or not the burden of proving that there was an interference justified for the purposes of Article 10 has been established.
AP1 (Applicant): Now, the government is quite aware of the weakness of the position that the Swiss federal tribunal landed the Swiss government into.
AP1 (Applicant): And it therefore develops a second argument.
AP1 (Applicant): The second argument is to ask the court whether or not a government is free to choose the means by which it will ensure that the accused is presumed innocent and that his right to private and family life is respected.
AP1 (Applicant): Again, phrased in this manner, the answer to the question is obviously in the affirmative.
AP1 (Applicant): However, again, and again with respect to our opponents, this is not the issue.
AP1 (Applicant): The issue is whether, after chosen freely the means by which the government seeks to ensure that an accused is presumed innocent until duly proved guilty in a court of law.
AP1 (Applicant): And on the other hand, in choosing the means by which it will ensure that his right to privacy, private life, family life is protected, the government chooses means that withstand the test of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the requirements of Article 6 for the presumption of innocence and with regard to Article 8 for the respect for private and family life.
AP1 (Applicant): Now, the Swiss judiciary invents a theory here that there would be a sort of vested duty in the state not only to make sure that an accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty, but also that there would be a sort of general mandate given to the state to ensure compliance with and respect for the accused's right to the protection of private and family life, even though the person involved does not complain about anything.
AP1 (Applicant): Members of the court, Boutifar had lawyers.
AP1 (Applicant): He changed them occasionally.
AP1 (Applicant): Many of these kinds of criminals do, as you know.
AP1 (Applicant): But he had lawyers.
AP1 (Applicant): Arnaud Bédard's article was published in 2003.
AP1 (Applicant): Boutifar was sentenced in November 2005.
AP1 (Applicant): He had two years during which he could claim that his rights under Article 8 or the Swiss equivalent, which would be 28th of the Swiss Civil Code, that his rights of privacy were infringed upon.
AP1 (Applicant): He could sue.
AP1 (Applicant): He could ask for provisional measures.
AP1 (Applicant): He did none of this.
AP1 (Applicant): And all of a sudden, the federal tribunal invents a theory that even though the person involved never complained about anything, still the government has the duty to hit a reporter, sentence him criminally, because allegedly what he wrote would not have been consistent with Article 8 of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): In and by itself, the argument appears unpersuasive.
AP1 (Applicant): But it is even more so.
AP1 (Applicant): Just checking my time, Mr. President.
AP1 (Applicant): It is even more so because on the assumption that there would be, and there isn't, on the assumption that there would be here an issue of Article 8 versus Article 10, or rather Article 10 versus Article 8, assuming this issue to be part of this case, which it is not, then all the elements of the six-fold test developed by this court in the Springer, the Axel Springer versus Germany case of February 7, 2012, all these elements would be met anyway.
AP1 (Applicant): I was going, Mr. President, I was going to take them all.
AP1 (Applicant): But in the interest of sticking to the allotted time, allow me to skip the first five requirements, which the court knows better than I do anyway.
AP1 (Applicant): And let me simply state that by any measurement, all these five requirements are met.
AP1 (Applicant): In particular, the second requirement that the person involved should be a public figure clearly applies to Boutifar Heer, who met the Swiss, German, and I believe European definition of the so-called relative person derzeit geschichte, the individual who is a public figure, relatively speaking, because of the notoriety that he acquired when he caused, intentionally, the biggest road murder in Switzerland of the century.
AP1 (Applicant): Be this as it may, I would like to draw the court's attention on the consequences.
AP1 (Applicant): The sixth element of your Axel Springer test, members of the court, the consequences for the person who comes here asking for the protection of Article 10.
AP1 (Applicant): Well, the court will remember that the judgment of the federal tribunal that we are debating here was issued on April 29, 2008.
AP1 (Applicant): In January 2009, Arnaud Bédard published a well-researched, careful, well-balanced article entitled, A Rebel Father Denounces a Pedophile's Perverted Game.
AP1 (Applicant): Un père indigné dénonce les jeux pervers d'un pédophile.
AP1 (Applicant): There was no, of course, the opinion of the person involved had been asked.
AP1 (Applicant): There was no case brought in the Swiss courts.
AP1 (Applicant): No judicial action was taken by any of the people mentioned in the article.
AP1 (Applicant): But lo and behold, in support of some of the points that Arnaud Bédard mentioned in his article, he had to produce copies of the minutes of a couple of hearings at the instruction, confidential minutes, according to the view proposed by the government.
AP1 (Applicant): What happened?
AP1 (Applicant): Well, on February 21, 2010, the federal tribunal confirmed the sentence handed down against Arnaud Bédard, a fine of 5,000 francs.
AP1 (Applicant): But please bear in mind that this fine, if unpaid, will be converted into 50 days in jail.
AP1 (Applicant): That, of course, is the object of case 2299A-30, which is now pending in front of this court.
AP1 (Applicant): To conclude, Mr. President, and I
AP1 (Applicant): will skip the third argument raised by the government in order to leave room for Dr. Hoffman,
AP1 (Applicant): to conclude the issue or the question raised many times by this court with regard to the risk of additional censorship, in particular the risk of additional judicial censorship.
AP1 (Applicant): In the case of Arnaud Bédard, I put it respectfully to your court, it is not a risk.
AP1 (Applicant): It is no longer a risk.
AP1 (Applicant): It is a fact, and it is a certainty that unless this court steps in, there will be one journalist less, and there aren't that many in French-speaking Switzerland, there will be one journalist less who can still write about controversial issues in Switzerland.
AP1 (Applicant): I thank the court for its attention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci maître Poncet, je donne la parole à maître Hofman.
AP2 (Applicant): Monsieur le Président, mesdames et messieurs les juges, dans le prolongement de la plaidoirie de Maître Ponsey, je me limiterai à attirer votre attention sur cinq points.
AP2 (Applicant): Premier point, la question du fardeau de la preuve.
AP2 (Applicant): Deuxième point, la relation entre l'article 10 CEDH et la présomption d'innocence.
AP2 (Applicant): Troisième point, la relation entre l'article 10 CEDH et la vie privée.
AP2 (Applicant): Quatrième point, la question du contenu de l'article de M. Beda.
AP2 (Applicant): Et enfin, cinquième point, la question de l'effet dissuasif de la sanction prononcée contre M. Beda.
AP2 (Applicant): Premier point, Monsieur le Président, mesdames et messieurs les juges, Maître Ponsey l'a dit, dans le cadre de l'examen de la condition de la nécessité dans une société démocratique, la Cour, dans son arrêt de section du 1er juillet 2014, avait retenu, je cite la dernière phrase du paragraphe 55, le gouvernement n'établit pas en quoi, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, la divulgation de ce type d'informations confidentielles aurait pu avoir une influence négative, etc.
AP2 (Applicant): Dans sa demande de renvoi, Maître Ponsey l'a dit, le gouvernement suisse s'est interrogé sur le fardeau de la preuve d'une violation de la CEDH.
AP2 (Applicant): Monsieur Beda ne conteste pas la position du gouvernement suisse sur le fardeau de la preuve.
AP2 (Applicant): Il l'a dit dans ses observations récapitulatives, c'est au requérant de démontrer qu'il a été victime d'une violation de la Convention.
AP2 (Applicant): Ici, Monsieur Beda a subi une condamnation pénale et Monsieur Beda vous démontrera qu'il a subi une violation de la Convention.
AP2 (Applicant): Cela me permet de passer au deuxième point, la relation entre l'article 10 CEDH et la présomption d'innocence.
AP2 (Applicant): Il faut rappeler ici le calendrier et les quatre dates importantes de ce dossier.
AP2 (Applicant): Première date, le 8 juillet 2003.
AP2 (Applicant): Cela fait donc 12 ans.
AP2 (Applicant): 8 juillet 2003, c'est l'accident sur le Grand Pont.
AP2 (Applicant): Maître Ponsey vous a donné les circonstances factuelles.
AP2 (Applicant): Deuxième date, 15 octobre 2003, l'article de Monsieur Beda dans l'illustré.
AP2 (Applicant): C'est trois mois, trois mois seulement après l'accident.
AP2 (Applicant): Troisième date, Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les membres de la Cour, c'est le 8 novembre 2005.
AP2 (Applicant): C'est l'audience du tribunal correctionnel concernant le chauffeur.
AP2 (Applicant): Cela fait donc plus de deux ans après l'article de Monsieur Beda ou plus de 28 mois après l'accident.
AP2 (Applicant): La quatrième date est celle du 23 novembre 2005, jour où le chauffeur a été condamné.
AP2 (Applicant): La lecture du jugement, Maître Ponsey vous l'a dit, c'était notre pièce 5, permet de voir que l'article de Monsieur Beda n'a pas eu d'impact sur la situation du chauffeur.
AP2 (Applicant): C'est cela même si le gouvernement suisse écrit dans ses observations finales, je cite, l'article fait partie du dossier judiciaire.
AP2 (Applicant): Fin de citation.
AP2 (Applicant): En revanche, ces dates ont un autre impact.
AP2 (Applicant): L'impact concerne l'information du public.
AP2 (Applicant): En effet, entre l'accident le 8 juillet 2003 et l'audience de jugement du chauffeur le 8 novembre 2005, il s'est passé 28 mois, je vous l'ai dit.
AP2 (Applicant): En appliquant la conception du gouvernement suisse qui préconise de donner une importance considérable, si ce n'est excessive, au secret de l'instruction, cela signifierait que pendant les 28 mois, le public, Maître Ponsey vous l'a dit, qui était intéressé et choqué par l'accident, n'aurait pas pu avoir d'information.
AP2 (Applicant): Dans ce contexte, c'est oublier la jurisprudence tolle de votre grande chambre du 10 décembre 2007, où je cite la première phrase du paragraphe 131.
AP2 (Applicant): L'information, écriviez-vous, est un bien périssable et en retarder la publication, même pour une brève période, risque fort de la priver de toute valeur et de tout intérêt.
AP2 (Applicant): Pouvait-on donc attendre 28 mois avant de parler de cet accident?
AP2 (Applicant): En résumé, s'agissant du deuxième point, non seulement l'article de M. Bédard n'a pas eu d'impact concret
AP2 (Applicant): sur la présomption d'innocence du chauffeur, mais en revanche, elle aurait eu un impact sur l'information du public.
AP2 (Applicant): Troisième point, la relation entre 10 CEDH et la vie privée.