TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): The first point I'd like to make is the applicant continued to make the point, the claim, that the Swedish signals intelligence regime is one of mass surveillance.
GR1 (Government): It is a narrowly tailored system subject to law, subject to judicial decision making, subject to oversight, subject to follow up.
GR1 (Government): Explicitly designed to include the safeguards that the convention requires of us.
GR1 (Government): And I would invite the court here to, as the third chamber did, conclude that there is no violation of the convention in this regard.
GR1 (Government): On a more specific point, if I might turn to the issue of data protection for legal persons.
GR1 (Government): Personal data always refers to an individual.
GR1 (Government): And so there isn't, therefore, the need, from an integrity perspective, for a legal person to have an equivalent kind of remedy.
GR1 (Government): But I hope that I have been able to give the court the broader picture of the full range of how the system of oversight and scrutiny works, also in this regard.
GR1 (Government): Just to make a couple of final points.
GR1 (Government): The signals intelligence within foreign intelligence has specific purposes set out in law.
GR1 (Government): It meets, as I've said previously, the necessity for the security of Sweden as of any other modern democracy today.
GR1 (Government): The positive obligation that Sweden as a contracting state and other contracting states has to protect the lives and safety of the public is an essential fundament in the totality of why this system is necessary.
GR1 (Government): And while recognizing that there is every need to prevent the public from abuse and to have safeguards in place, my government would argue that the remedies and the safeguards the Swedish system includes are effective and robust, as found by the third chamber, and one which does provide the protection that could be expected in a system governed by the convention.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Thank you very much.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): We have now come to the end of the hearing.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Please be seated, I declare open the public hearing on the admissibility and merits in the case of Khoroshenko against Russia.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on the 6th of October 2004 under Article 34 of the Convention by Russian national Mr. Andrey Anatolyevich Khoroshenko.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): It was allocated to the first section of the court, pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of Court, and communicated to the government on the 13th of January 2011.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 11th of February 2014, the chamber decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favor of the grand chamber, none of the parties having objected to a relinquishment.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 12th of May 2014, leave was granted to a group of professors of the University of Surrey School of Law to submit written comments as a third party by virtue of Rule 44, Paragraph 3 of the Rules of Court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Mr. Georgy
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Matyushkin, head of the Office of the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, assisted by Mr. Nikolay Mikhaylov, counsel,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and by Ms. Yana Tsimbalova and Mr. Stanislav Kovpak, advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Ms. Oxana Preobrazhenskaya,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): counsel, assisted by Ms. Marina Makarova, advisor.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I also welcome a delegation from the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors of Turkey.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Matyushkin for the government will speak first,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and then Ms. Preobrazhenskaya for the applicant.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting into Turkish has been authorized for the benefit of delegation from the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors of Turkey.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Furthermore, interpreting into Armenian has been authorized for the benefit of a delegation of Armenian legal professionals, and interpreting into Moldavian has been authorized for the benefit of a delegation from the Moldovan Ombudsman's Office.
GR1 (Government): Honorable judges, at the beginning, the Russian Federation authorities would like to state their position concerning the admissibility of the present case.
GR1 (Government): As it follows from the questions posed by the Grand Chamber of the Court, the subject matter of the present case is the right of the applicant to conjugal visits.
GR1 (Government): A conjugal visit is a scheduled period in which a convict is permitted to spend several hours or days in private with a legal spouse.
GR1 (Government): As it follows from the applicant's persuasion, in 1996, he divorced from his wife on her initiative after the sentence in respect of him had become final.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, from 1996, the applicant did not have the right to conjugal visits, solely for the reason that he had no spouse.
GR1 (Government): In this connection, the government considered that the present application is inadmissible.
GR1 (Government): Thus, the present case deals with the issue of whether the restrictions of the right of persons convicted to life imprisonment to conjugal visits during the first 10 years of the service in life imprisonment sentence complies with Article 8 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): In connection with this, the government's ambition, attention will mainly be paid to the clarification of the reasons for the restriction on the right in question.
GR1 (Government): Before answering the questions posed by the court, the Russian Federation authorities would like to draw attention to the general position of the court regarding conjugal visits for convicts and the level of the court's case law development in this field.
GR1 (Government): Starting from the first decisions as to the admissibility of such complaints delivered in 70s, again, Germany and the United Kingdom, as for example, in the case X of the Federal Republic of Germany, number 360368, and X versus United Kingdom.
GR1 (Government): It was delivered in May 1975.
GR1 (Government): The commission found the restrictions on either total prohibition of conjugal visits in prison was not contrary to Article 8, part 2 of the Convention, on the ground that it is necessary in the interest of public safety.
GR1 (Government): In the latter case, again, the United Kingdom, with regard to the allegation that the applicant has been deprived of the adequate exercise of his parental rights, the commission held that measures limiting a prisoner's access to his children can be justified in view of Article 8, part 2 of the Convention, which allows an interference with the right to respect for family life if it is lawful and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
GR1 (Government): In the 90s, the commission has repeatedly stated that although the refusal of conjugal visits constitutes an interference with the right to respect for one's family life under Article 8 of the Convention, for the present time, it must be regarded as justified for the prevention of disorder of crime under the second part of the provision, as well as that the difference in treatment between the convicts and those who are not detained in the direct result of lawfully imposed prison sentence, and as a result, has a reasonable and objective justification.
GR1 (Government): At the beginning of this century, the court's practice has not been changed or amended in the way that somehow requires providing for conjugal visits.
GR1 (Government): In this context, the government draws the court's attention to the case of Aliev versus Ukraine, where the court recognized that some measures of control of prisoners' contacts with the outside world is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention.
GR1 (Government): Whilst noting with approval their reform movements in several European countries to improve prison condition by facilitating conjugal visits, the court considers that the refusal of such visits may, for the present time, be regarded as justified for the prevention of disorder and crime within the meaning of the second part of Article 8 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): In the circumstances of the case, the court found that the restriction of the applicant's wife's visits was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and that there was no violation of Article 8.
GR1 (Government): In the case Dixon versus United Kingdom, the court stated that conjugal visits in prison is an area in which the contracting states could enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention with due regard to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals.
GR1 (Government): Turning to the recent case, the Russian Federation authorities referred to the case of Epners-Gefners versus Latvia and Grimailos versus Latvia, where the court still supported the position that the Convention does not require the contracting states to make provisions for conjugal visits.
GR1 (Government): Finally, in the latest case of Varnas versus Lithuania, the court emphasized that such restriction as limitations imposed on the number of the family visits, supervision over these visits, and if so justified by the nature of the offense, subjection of a detainee to the special prison regime or special visit arrangements constitute an interference with the rights of Article 8 of the Convention, but are not by themselves in breach of that provision.
GR1 (Government): Thus, based on the extensive case law, the government is deeply convinced that the provision of the Russian legislation, which provides for the restrictions of the rights of the persons convicted to life imprisonment to long-term visits during the first 10 years of service in life imprisonment sentence, are in the wide margin of appreciation recognized by the court for nearly four decades.
GR1 (Government): Punishment, in accordance with Section 2 of Article 43 of the Criminal Court of the Russian Federation, shall be applied for the purpose of restoring social justice and also for the purpose of reforming a convicted person and of preventing the commission of further crimes.
GR1 (Government): The purposes of the punishment are in line with the principles of criminal justice and humanism, declared in Article 6 and 7 of the Criminal Court of the Russian Federation.
GR1 (Government): In particular, pursuant to the principle of justice, punishment, and other legal measures applicable to a person who has committed a crime, shall be just, that is, they shall correspond to the character and decree of the social danger of the crime.
GR1 (Government): The circumstances of this commission and the personality of the guilty party, following the principle of humanism, punishment, and other legal measures applicable to a person who has committed a crime, may not pursue the aim of causing physical suffering or debasement of human dignity.
GR1 (Government): The order and conditions of sentence servicing are established in the Penitentiary Court of Russian Federation.
GR1 (Government): According to Article 1 of this court, the purpose of the Russian Penitentiary legislation are reforming a convicted person and preventing the commission of further crimes, both by the convicted and other persons.
GR1 (Government): The government informed the court that the provisions of the Penitentiary Court of the Russian Federation, disputed by the applicant, have been examined by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on several occasions and its legal position was formulated in a number of its decisions.
GR1 (Government): For example, decision on June 2005, the text of which have been submitted to the court.
GR1 (Government): The Russian Federation authorities, based on the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, admit that there are restrictions on the right to long-term visits during the first 10 years of service in life imprisonment sentence amount to an interference with their pride to private and family life.
GR1 (Government): However, the government are convinced that the interference in question complies with the requirements of Article 8 of the convention.
GR1 (Government): In this connection, the government would like to state that, pursuant to Article 89 of the Penitentiary Court of Russian Federation, the convicted persons have a right to be visited by their relatives and other persons.
GR1 (Government): There are two types of such visits, short-term visits and long-term visits.
GR1 (Government): The difference between these two types of visits is in their duration.
GR1 (Government): In particular, a short-term visit lasts four hours and a long-term visit lasts three days.
GR1 (Government): Along with that, the set legal provision does not provide for a right to have long-term visits during their first 10 years of service in life imprisonment sentence.
GR1 (Government): As provided by Article 126 of the Penitentiary Court, the persons convicted to life imprisonment and the convicts in whose respect their capital punishment was replaced by life imprisonment by way of pardon serve their sentences in special regime correctional colonies separately from the other convicts.
GR1 (Government): In accordance with Article 127 of the Penitentiary Court, there are three types of regimes in a special regime correctional colony, strict conditions for the first 10 years, normal, and the less restrictive conditions after 10 years in normal conditions.
GR1 (Government): The number of both above-mentioned types of visits for the convicts servicing life imprisonment sentence depends on the regime.
GR1 (Government): Section 3 of Article 125 of the Penitentiary Court stipulates three conditions of serving sentences, namely the condition for their first 10 years of service in life imprisonment sentence, and in particular, envisage that the convicts are allowed to have two short-term visits annually.
GR1 (Government): After servicing their first 10 years of life imprisonment sentence in strict conditions, convicts are placed in normal conditions and allowed to have two short-term and two long-term visits annually.
GR1 (Government): Having completed servicing no less than 10 years in normal conditions, convicts may be transferred to less strict conditions of servicing sentence, and they are allowed to have three short and three long visits annually.
GR1 (Government): As regard the aims of the interference in question, as well as whether these aims are legitimate in accordance with the requirements of the second part of Article 8 of the Convention, the government would like to submit the following.
GR1 (Government): In accordance with the court case law, any measure depriving a person of his liberty under Article 5 of the Convention entails inherent limitation on his private life and family life.
GR1 (Government): However, it is an essential part of the detainee's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him, or if necessary, assist him in maintaining contact with his close family.
GR1 (Government): Such restrictions as limitations put on the number of family visits, if so justified by the nature of the offense, subjection of the detainee to a special detention regime or special visit arrangements constitute an interference with the rights under Article 8 of the Convention, but are not by themselves in breach of that provision.
GR1 (Government): Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be prescribed by law, must pursue one or more legitimate aims listed in Article 8 Part 2 of the Convention, and in addition, must be justified as being necessary in a democratic society.
GR1 (Government): Being guided by the seated principles, the government maintained that Article 55, Section 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, allows for a possibility of limitation of the rights and freedoms of men and citizens by the federal law to such an extent, to which it is necessary for the protection of the fundamental principles of the constitutional system, morality, health, rights, and lawful interests of other people, for ensuring defense of the country and security of the state.
GR1 (Government): Such limitations may be connected with the application to persons who have committed crimes of a criminal punishment as a measure of public compulsion, the regularity of which is that during the execution thereof, a convict is influenced in a special way which is expressed in deprivation of limitation of some of his rights and freedoms and imposition of specific obligations on him.
GR1 (Government): The Constitution of the Russian Federation refining the adoption of criminal and penitentiary legislation to the Russian Federation legislative branch, Article 71, Subjection 0, give the power to the federal legislature to provide for such restricting measures in respect of a person who has committed crimes and has been subjected to punishment, which, as it falls from Section 1 of Article 43 of the Criminal Court of the Russian Federation, in its essence, consists of the depreciation of limitation of the rights and freedoms of a convict envisaged by law.
GR1 (Government): At that, the legislator, when establishing the responsibility for the crime, as well as the law enforcement agencies, when resolving the issue of imposing thereof on the person who has committed a crime, shall take into account the nature of the crime, its danger for the values protected by the Constitution of Russia, and the criminal law intensity, reasons, and other circumstances of the commission thereof, as well as information concerning the person who has committed the crime.
GR1 (Government): Adopting measures of criminal punishment with different sets of limitations corresponding to the gravity of the crime committed by the convict and the severity of the sentence imposed, as well as defining the order of service in his sentence, the legislator shall proceed from the fact that the convicts have the same rights and freedoms like other citizens, with some exceptions conditioned by the peculiarities of their personality and the crimes committed.
GR1 (Government): Conditions of sentence servicing are re-entered to the individualization of penalty, differentiation of sanctions, and application thereof, as well as they provide for preconditions for the achievement of punishment aims.
GR1 (Government): That is, rectification of injustice, reformation of a convict, and prevention of new crimes.
GR1 (Government): A person committing an intentional crime shall, under all circumstances, take into account that as a result, he or she could be deprived of liberty and limited in rights and freedoms.
GR1 (Government): This means that such person consciously condemned him, herself, and his or her family to these restrictions, including the rights to communication with family, inviolability of private life, personal and family privacy.
GR1 (Government): Set of restrictions established by the criminal and penitential legislation for convicts, including the restriction on visits received by the convict by their number, duration, and conditions, limitation on the number and duration of telephone calls, as well as number of parcels, post packages, and packages in differential depending on, first of all, severity of the sentence imposed by the court corresponding to the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the circumstances of the commission thereof, and the personality of offender, as well as depending on the conduct of the convict within the period of sentence serving, which ensures proportionality and fairness of the punishment.
GR1 (Government): The necessity of legislative regulation of convicts' visits by their relatives and friends finds its footing in their provision of the body of principles for the protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 1988, in particular in principle 19, and arises from the specifics of both criminal proceedings and substantive legal relations, including the application within the framers of punishment in the form of deprivation of liberty.
GR1 (Government): Restrictions on visits as to their number, duration, and conditions are an inevitable consequence of this nature of restraint consisting of isolation of the convict in a special place under guard.
GR1 (Government): And from this viewpoint, the provisions disputed by the applicant establish no additional limits by themselves beside the ones that follow from the essence of such measures of restraint as deprivation of liberty within the means of Article 55, Section 3 of the Constitution of Russia.
GR1 (Government): The rights to respect for private life, Article 23, Section 1 of the Constitution of Russia, means the opportunity granted to the person and guaranteed by the state to control information about him herself and to prevent dissemination of intimate personal data.
GR1 (Government): Then that notion of private life includes the area of human vital activities, which refers to an individual and only applies to him and is not subject to control on the part of the society and the state unless such activities are contrary to law.
GR1 (Government): However, as the court stated, the main purpose of Article 8 is to protect an individual against arbitrary interference of state authorities.
GR1 (Government): When deciding on the measures of punishment in the form of deprivation of liberty for the crime committed, the state does not perform arbitrary interferences with the private life of a citizen, but simply fulfills sanctions on protection of public interests.
GR1 (Government): Accordingly, the disputed provisions stipulating that the prison sentence to life imprisonment for committing especially grave crimes make an attempt on human life have a right to long-term visas, but not sooner than after 10 years of imprisonment do not violate the fair balance between the public interest in general and the interests of an individual.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, limitation of the right of person sentences to life imprisonment to long-term family visits pursues legitimate aims.
GR1 (Government): It does not provide for the total prohibition and is temporary.
GR1 (Government): In connection with the question concerning the proportionality of the restrictions to the legitimate aim pursued, in particular, concerning the necessity in democratic society of such interference, the Russian Federation authorities would like to refer to the seated above relevant court case law, for example, Aliyev versus Ukraine.
GR1 (Government): It should also be noted that as regard of other countries or the Council of Europe, more than half of the contracting states allows for contrigual visits for prisoners subject to a variety of different restrictions.
GR1 (Government): At the same time, there are also countries in the Council of Europe in which their prisoners have no right to conjugal visits at all.
GR1 (Government): Concluding the oral submission, I would like to emphasize that the severity of punishment imposed on the applicant, including the restrictions on visits, is not disproportionate to the criminal offenses he had committed.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call now Ms. Preobrazhenskaya.
AP2 (Applicant): Monsieur le Président, mesdames et messieurs les juges, je m'appelle Oksana Pribrazhenskaya.
AP2 (Applicant): Moi et ma collègue Marina Makarova, nous vous présentons la position de Rokuron concernant son cas.
AP2 (Applicant): Tout d'abord, permettez-moi de vous exposer très brèvement la situation personnelle de Rokuron, Khrachenko Andriy Anatolyevitch.
AP2 (Applicant): Le Rokuron a été arrêté en 1994 et placé en détention provisoire.
AP2 (Applicant): Depuis cette année, il n'est jamais sorti de la détention.
AP2 (Applicant): Jusqu'en 2009, il n'a eu droit à aucune visite longue avec ses proches.