TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
Robert Spano (Judge): Je voudrais poser une question à le gouvernement.
Robert Spano (Judge): Peut-être que je n'ai pas bien compris, mais dans vos plaidoiries, et aussi dans vos observations en écrit, vous parlez toujours d'une décision qui, à votre avis, n'était pas finale.
Robert Spano (Judge): Ma question est donc, est-ce que la Cour sera justifiée de procéder sur la base d'une affirmation du gouvernement que la décision est une condamnation?
Robert Spano (Judge): Vous êtes d'accord avec le récréant que la décision est bel et bien une condamnation, mais votre désaccord est limité à la question de savoir si ce condamnation était finale.
Robert Spano (Judge): Merci beaucoup.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Merci. S'il n'y a pas d'autres questions,
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): la Cour va maintenant se retirer pour 20 minutes, après quoi les partis pourront présenter des brèves observations en réponse aux plaidoiries adverses et répondre aux questions des juges.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Présentez, prenez place.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): L'audience est reprise et la parole est à Madame Brumar.
GR2 (Government): Suite aux questions posées par les membres de la grande chambre, je vais essayer de répondre dans un ton intégré aux différents aspects soulevés.
GR2 (Government): L'ordonnance du procureur, évidemment, décrit les mesures que le procureur adopte ou prend.
GR2 (Government): C'est pour cela que, dans un sens large, nous avons employé soit le verbe décider, soit le substantif décision, en nous reférant à l'ordonnance du procureur.
GR2 (Government): Elle n'est pas, en même temps, de point de vue légal, elle n'est pas une décision judiciaire similaire à une décision d'une instance, d'un tribunal, sauf dans le cas où elle reçoit la confirmation d'un juge.
GR2 (Government): Pour répondre à la première partie de votre question, la décision du procureur ne devient proprement dite une décision que sur confirmation par le juge.
GR2 (Government): Cette confirmation peut être faite comme le prévaut l'ancien code de procédure pénale sur plainte de la personne intéressée, qui peut être, évidemment, l'accusée ou un autre participant à la procédure pénale.
GR2 (Government): Et c'est seulement ça, l'autre possibilité de confirmer les mesures adoptées par le procureur, c'est en évaluant le bien fondé du réquisitoire par lequel il saisit l'instance.
GR2 (Government): Alors, l'ordonnance du procureur n'est pas une décision si elle n'est pas confirmée par le juge.
GR2 (Government): Et comme nous avons déjà indiqué, le fait que les amendes éventuellement disposées sont payées ou exécutées de manière non volontaire n'en change rien.
GR2 (Government): Cette mesure adoptée par le procureur n'équivaut pas à une condamnation.
GR2 (Government): En regardant en premier lieu la nature de la sanction, le code pénal lui-même décrit les sanctions, cette amende, comme étant une amende administrative, mais en regardant aussi les effets que la loi donne à une telle mesure.
GR2 (Government): Ca veut dire qu'une amende décidée par l'instance ou indiquée par le procureur en vertu de l'ancien article 18 indices 1 ne constitue pas un antécédent pénal.
GR2 (Government): Elle n'est pas prise en considération dans l'hypothèse d'une future conduite inconforme par rapport à la législation pénale.
GR2 (Government): La possibilité du procureur de rouvrir les poursuites pénales et de l'avis de gouvernement tel décrit dans les observations écrites et comme mentionné aussi dans notre exposé oral d'aujourd'hui, une voie de recours pour ces personnes qui ont été en danger de mourir ou de mourir de maladie, elle ne vise pas un acte à caractère définitif, elle n'est pas limitée aux motifs exceptionnels.
GR2 (Government): En même temps, il faut l'admettre, l'ancien code de procédure pénale ne prévoyait pas un délai limite pour la réouverture des poursuites pénales par le procureur.
GR2 (Government): Toutefois, dans notre cas, et bien sûr que la jurisprudence de l'accord dépasse le cadre particulier d'une affaire donnée, mais les circonstances d'une affaire ne sont pas pertinentes dans toute évaluation, dans notre cas, la réouverture des poursuites pénales est intervenue après seulement cinq mois.
GR2 (Government): Une dernière précision qui est aussi faite dans nos observations écrites, il faut aussi tenir compte de la spécificité de ce type de fait pénal comme celui reproché au recueillant.
GR2 (Government): Il s'agit des infractions de péril, disons.
GR2 (Government): Le fait de conduire sous l'influence de l'alcool, le fait de refuser à se soumettre au prélèvement biologique est un fait avec une potentialité comme les instances romaines l'ont confirmé dans cette affaire, une potentialité dangereuse qui ne doit pas être ignorée ou traitée de manière superficielle même en l'absence d'une partie lésée ou d'une partie civile, même si aucun résultat dangereux ne s'est produit.
GR2 (Government): Le requérant avait la possibilité de solliciter la confirmation de la mesure adoptée par le procureur.
GR2 (Government): Il a choisi de ne pas le faire considérant probablement que la solution lui est favorable.
GR2 (Government): Mais dans ce cas particulier, il n'existe pas une autre partie qui puisse contester la mesure prise par le procureur.
GR2 (Government): Mais on avait cette autre voie, la réouverture de poursuites pénales, qu'a emprunté le procureur en chef du parquet supérieur pour vérifier et annuler la mesure initialement prise sous le terrain de l'article 18-1-10.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I call now Mr. Bratu.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Could you please switch on the microphone?
AP1 (Applicant): As it regards the first question, the domestic law does not provide the limit time to reopen the prosecution.
AP1 (Applicant): As it regards the second question, I think Kosovsky decision, the decision of the European Court of Justice in Kosovsky case is binding on the member states of European Union.
AP1 (Applicant): It is not binding the European Court of Human Rights.
AP1 (Applicant): As it regards the first question, I think the possibility of chief prosecutor to reopen the prosecution is an extraordinary way of appeal because it depends only to chief prosecutor with no time limit.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mr. Bratu.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): La Cour va maintenant délibérer sous la recevabilité et le fonds.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): Please be seated.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the admissibility and merits in the case of Vilnes and others versus Norway.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): The applications were lodged respectively on 24th September 2009 and 7th April 2010 with the court under article 34 of the convention by altogether seven applicants.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): Mr. Vilnes brought the first application.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): Mr. Muledal, Lindahl, Sigurdur, Hafsteinsson.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): Nygård, Mr. Nesdal, Mr. Jakobsen brought the second application.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): Mr. Lindahl is a Swedish national.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): Mr. Sigurdur Hafsteinsson is an Icelandic national.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): And the other five applicants are Norwegian nationals.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): The applications were communicated to the government by the fourth section on 7th June 2011.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): On the 12th of June 2012, the first section to which the applications were allocated following a change in the composition of the court sections decided that they should be joined.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Mr. Emberland, as counsel,
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): assisted by Ms. Hesjedal Sending, Ms. Kjeldsberg, Ms. Torstensen, Mr. Østre, Mr. Heidar, Mr. Ask,
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): Mr. Sandvik and Mr. Hauso as advisors.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): Mr. Vilnes is represented by Mr. Ludvigsen.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): Mr. Muledal, Mr. Lindahl, Mr. Hafsteinsson, Mr. Nygård are represented by Mr. Johnsrud.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): And Mr. Nesdal and Mr. Jakobsen are represented by Ms. Hellum-Lilleengen,
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): assisted by Ms. Bentsen as advisor.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): The applicant, Mr. Muledal, is also present.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): I welcome all of you in the name of the court.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): Having consulted the agent of the government and the representative of the applicants, I have determined the order of addresses as follows.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): Mr. Emberland for the government will speak first,
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): and then Ms. Hellum-Lilleengen and Mr. Ludvigsen for the applicants.
Nina Vajić (JudgeP): I call Mr. Emberland.
GR1 (Government): Thank you, Madam President, distinguished members of the Court.
GR1 (Government): The principle of subsidiarity is the very basis of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): This follows from a joint reading of its Articles 1 and 19.
GR1 (Government): As a general rule, where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the task of this Court to substitute its own assessment for the facts of that of domestic courts.
GR1 (Government): It is for domestic courts to establish the facts of a case on the basis of the evidence before them.
GR1 (Government): This, Madam President, is how the Ground Chamber stated its view on subsidiarity in the landmark case of Alston and others in March this year.
GR1 (Government): The Ground Chamber also added that in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead the Court to depart from the findings reached by domestic courts.
GR1 (Government): Madam President, the present case typifies a case in which the Court should rely on the principle of subsidiarity and not override the holdings that have been delivered by domestic courts.
GR1 (Government): This should lead the Court to reject the present applications as inadmissible or, in the alternative, to hold that Norway has not violated the Convention with regard to the applicants.
GR1 (Government): The Court should take cognizance of the fact that the Supreme Court of Norway in 2009 found against the applicants' holding, as it did, that the North Sea divers had not been victims of violations of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): The Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the divers' claims of Convention breaches and found that their claims could not be sustained.
GR1 (Government): This was the end result of a number of legal proceedings initiated by the former North Sea divers.
GR1 (Government): The Norwegian state, however, had already at the time assumed moral and political responsibility for the divers' circumstances, and the divers had already been afforded compensation.
GR1 (Government): And divers were given free legal aid to pursue their claims for additional compensation from the authorities.
GR1 (Government): Their claims were considered in painstaking detail by the Oslo City Court in at least two very comprehensive legal proceedings in 2007 and 2008.
GR1 (Government): Each set of proceedings dealt with a massive amount of documentary evidence and included statements from witnesses who were cross-examined.
GR1 (Government): The cases were subsequently considered by the High Court.
GR1 (Government): Again the size of the case files was imposing.
GR1 (Government): Again evidence was presented.
GR1 (Government): And once again witnesses were heard and cross-examined.
GR1 (Government): Again the claims of violations of the Convention were assessed.
GR1 (Government): The High Court found in favour of the Government, and this conclusion was, as already mentioned, confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2009.
GR1 (Government): The Government respectfully submits that the Court should abstain from overturning the findings of the domestic courts.
GR1 (Government): There are a number of reasons for this, and they will be dealt with now and in turn in the course of my intervention.
GR1 (Government): The Government will first explain its position with regard to the question of admissibility.
GR1 (Government): Firstly and with reference to question number five posed by the Court in its letter to the parties prior to the hearing, the applicants have now furnished the Court with adequate information for the Government not to oppose the admissibility of the claims on grounds of exhaustion of domestic remedies.
GR1 (Government): That being said, the Government maintains that the applications should be found inadmissible pursuant to Article 35, paragraph 3, as they are incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): The Government considers that the claims do not sufficiently relate to the scope of the provisions relied upon.
GR1 (Government): This has been dealt with at length in the Government's written observations as of November 2011.
GR1 (Government): In any event, the Government submits that applications should be rejected as manifestly all founded within the meaning of Article 35, paragraph 3.
GR1 (Government): In spite of the Government's urging to do so, the applicants have yet to identify and substantiate in their individual cases the details of whether, and if so, to what extent, their health problems have been caused by the authorities' alleged breaches of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): The applicants have thus not acted in conformity with Rule 44c of the Rules of Court, and the Court is encouraged to decide the question of admissibility in the Government's favour accordingly.
GR1 (Government): The remainder of the Government's intervention proceeds now on the basis that the Court should find against the Government's view that the applicants' complaints should be assessed on the merits of their cases.
GR1 (Government): The Government first turns to question number one posed by the Court in its letter this June, namely, to what extent, if at all, did the authorities have a duty under the Convention to provide the applicants with information regarding the risks involved in diving operations?
GR1 (Government): The Government notes that question number one covers in principle all four Convention provisions invoked by the applicants.
GR1 (Government): Allow me in the following to concentrate on the norm that may be extracted from Article 8.
GR1 (Government): As a first point, the Government observes that this Court has yet not had the opportunity to address a case of positive obligations in terms of access to, and the provision of, information which shares the fundamental features of the present case.
GR1 (Government): Our case concerns a claim that the State should have provided information to individuals prior to their undertaking of professional activities.
GR1 (Government): In this respect, it differs from cases such as McGinley v. Egan and Roche v. United Kingdom,
GR1 (Government): which both concern the duty to provide information after health hazards had occurred.
GR1 (Government): The present case also stands out since the Government's involvement in the activities in question is confined to the Norwegian State being a regulator and supervisor on the Norwegian continental shelf.
GR1 (Government): Survivors have not been in the employment of the Norwegian Government.
GR1 (Government): They were employed or engaged themselves in private ventures.
GR1 (Government): The present case is also different from the Court's case law on access to information regarding pollution.
GR1 (Government): As the Supreme Court stated in paragraph 139 of its judgment, that line of cases is not immediately comparable in our case.
GR1 (Government): The Court, in posing question number one, seems to ask whether there might be a duty for the authorities to actively ensure that an occupational group, prior to undertaking its work tasks, is informed about factors that could be relevant for assessing the health risks potentially involved in the private enterprise.
GR1 (Government): The Government admits that this is a stretch to the extent of positive obligations under the Convention way too far.
GR1 (Government): There is no case law supporting that such a norm exists and there is no reason why the Court should establish such a norm in the present case.
GR1 (Government): In fact, the Court should revert to the very basics of its positive obligations doctrine.
GR1 (Government): The requisite norm then should be whether the national authorities should take the necessary steps to ensure effective protection of the applicant's right to respect for their private life.
GR1 (Government): In assessing this, a fair balance has to be struck between the general interest of the community and the competing interests of the individuals concerned.
GR1 (Government): The assessment will depend on the individual circumstances of each case and the Court must afford a margin of appreciation to the authorities.
GR1 (Government): In the present case, such a basic approach must clearly lead the Court to conclude that the Norwegian authorities have not failed in their duties under the Convention.
GR1 (Government): In the event that the Court should seek guidance in the case law specifically relating to access to information, the Government recalls what was stated in paragraph 160 of the Grand Chamber judgments in Roche v. the United Kingdom in 2005.
GR1 (Government): Where a Government engages in hazardous activities which might have hidden adverse consequences on the health of those involved, respect for private life under Article 8 requires that an effective and accessible procedure be established which enables such persons to seek all relevant and appropriate information.
GR1 (Government): If this norm, which directly concerns access to information, comes into play, it also has to be complied with in the case of the applicants, as will become clear in the following.
GR1 (Government): I will now, on behalf of the Government, address question number two posed by the Court prior to the hearing, namely whether it is consistent with Norway's duty under the Convention to provide applicants with information regarding risks, that the authorities should not require the diving companies to disclose their respective decompression tables, having in particular regard to a. the divers' access to information contained in the decompression tables, b.
GR1 (Government): the diving companies' use of rapid tables, and c. the authorities' work on the harmonising
GR1 (Government): of tables.
GR1 (Government): Madam President, the Government at the outset submits that the question number one fails to recognise certain facts.
GR1 (Government): The authorities did indeed require the diving companies to impart information regarding their tables, and the companies did submit information regarding diving procedures to the authorities.
GR1 (Government): This was provided for already in Section 121 of the 1967 Norwegian Diving Regulations, and was subsequently confirmed in the 1978 Temporary Diving Regulations in their item number seven in their appendix six.
GR1 (Government): That this arrangement was in use already at an early stage of Norse sea operations is evidenced in the authorities' correspondence with the Strong Work Diving Company in 1971, which has been enclosed as appendices four and five to the Government's letter to the Court on 28 August this year.
GR1 (Government): It also follows from Section 585 of the so-called Losses Report that the authorities progressively got access to decompression tables for saturation dives.
GR1 (Government): The Government will now respond to question number 2a by taking it as asking whether Norwegian authorities had an obligation to ensure access for the divers to the decompression tables in use, so that they, by comparing the tables, were enabled to assess what risks they might be taking when undertaking their contracted dives.
GR1 (Government): Firstly the Court should acknowledge that the applicants had access to the tables used in their own dives, as they were the individuals who performed the dives according to the respective tables.
GR1 (Government): According to Section 5.3 of the 1978 Temporary Diving Regulations, the divers were in fact
GR1 (Government): obliged to be familiar with the operation procedures to be used.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, as many divers were engaged by different companies for different operations and were not employed permanently by just one company, many divers also had access to the tables used by their respective employers.
GR1 (Government): Secondly the applicants undoubtedly had access to the various tables today.
GR1 (Government): This transpires for instance by Appendix 4 in the applicants' letter to the Court on 28 August this year, which contains a comparison of saturation diving tables.
GR1 (Government): Also information relating to the comparison of the tables was available in a report on that subject prepared by the Petroleum Directorate in 1991, and which was submitted to the Court by the Government as Appendix 3 on 28 August this year.
GR1 (Government): Further, even when the dives were undertaken, the divers were acquainted with the challenges posed by the use of rapid tables.
GR1 (Government): This is specifically said in Section 5.7.4 of the Lawsuit Report.
GR1 (Government): This section of the report has been translated into English by the Government at the Court's request and was submitted to the Court on 28 August this year.
GR1 (Government): More generally, already by virtue of the 1968 Freedom of Information Act, there has been a general system of access to public documents in place, including a complaints procedure.
GR1 (Government): Whatever information was available to the authorities was thus in principle also accessible to the applicants.
GR1 (Government): The fact that the companies regarded the tables as confidential business information may have prevented the applicants from gaining access.
GR1 (Government): Whether that would have been the case, however, we simply do not know.
GR1 (Government): Polar divers did not pursue such legal avenues available to them at the time.
GR1 (Government): Against this background, the Government submits that it has not failed in its duty to provide effective procedures that would have enabled the applicants to seek relevant and appropriate information within the meaning of the norm set out for the ground chamber in Roche v.
GR1 (Government): United Kingdom in 2005.
GR1 (Government): The Government will now address questions number 2b and c, which in the Government's view concern issues that touches more generally on what obligations may be imposed on the State to secure the conventional rights of the applicants.
GR1 (Government): The Government wishes in this respect to recall the basics of the positive obligations doctrine.
GR1 (Government): Responsibility requires firstly that the authorities in fact knew or ought to have known of the risks involved, and secondly that the authorities on this basis reasonably failed to act accordingly.
GR1 (Government): The Supreme Court in Norway held in 2009 that the Government did not fail on this point.
GR1 (Government): As to what the Government knew or ought to have known, the Government wishes to bring the following aspects to the Court's attention.
GR1 (Government): The Supreme Court, in relying on the findings of the High Court and the so-called Losius Commission, held that there was a broad-based opinion that diving did not have serious long-term effects if there was no decompression sickness.
GR1 (Government): It further held that decompression sickness in itself was not considered to be particularly dangerous.
GR1 (Government): At the same time, it held that it was established that the harmful mental effects of extreme life-threatening situations was known.
GR1 (Government): This is essential information.
GR1 (Government): The authorities do not deny that deep-sea diving may have adverse effects on the health of divers.
GR1 (Government): However the domestic courts, in relying on the Losius report, can find a certainty of hazardous effects to extreme life-threatening situations.
GR1 (Government): This the Court should bear in mind should not be equated with the use as such of the so-called rapid tables in saturation dives.
GR1 (Government): The responsibility on which the authorities must be measured against what was known at the time when the applicants conducted their dives.
GR1 (Government): In this respect, it is important for the Court to recognise that awareness of possible health hazards related to deep dives has come gradually for all parties involved.