TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): Je me tourne vers le troisième but légitime, à savoir la nécessité de protéger les intérêts de la justice. On vise en particulier un processus serein de formation de l'opinion
GR1 (Government): des autorités judiciaires, y compris des autorités de poursuite. Ces mêmes intérêts
GR1 (Government): sont invoqués, en plus de la protection des intérêts des partis, dans la discussion sur le sort de l'article 293 de notre Code pénal et milite en faveur de son maintien.
GR1 (Government): Cette discussion est toujours en cours. Une majorité de la Commission parlementaire compétente
GR1 (Government): s'est prononcée contre l'abolition de la disposition. La consultation auprès des
GR1 (Government): cercles intéressés, y compris canton et partis politiques, démontre qu'une très large majorité s'est prononcée dans le même sens. Nous sommes disposés de mettre
GR1 (Government): à la disposition de la Cour le résultat de cette consultation, une fois la Commission aura pris connaissance du rapport qui est en train d'être élaboré par les collègues du droit pénal. En résumé, M. le Président, Mesdames et
GR1 (Government): Messieurs les juges, le contenu de l'information, l'intitulé qui fait sensation, la discréditation de la personne du prévenu, ainsi que le moment de la publication démontrent que celle-ci ne visait pas une information objective sur les circonstances du drame, mais tout simplement a suscité la curiosité des lecteurs. L'intérêt qualifié du public, seul susceptible de justifier
GR1 (Government): la violation du secret de l'enquête, faisait défaut.
GR1 (Government): Comment la majorité de la Chambre est-elle arrivée à une conclusion différente? Elle
GR1 (Government): y arrive sur la base d'une argumentation qui n'est, à notre avis, pas soutenable et qui, en partie, s'éloigne de la jurisprudence établie.
GR1 (Government): Par contre, la Chambre dit que le gouvernement n'établit pas en quoi la divulgation des informations confidentielles aurait pu avoir une influence négative. Les trois juges minoritaires
GR1 (Government): le contredisent. Je cite « Une telle exigence viderait d'une grande partie de son sens
GR1 (Government): le secret de l'instruction ». La minorité se trouve ici sur un terrain solide. Dans
GR1 (Government): l'affaire Stoll, la Grande Chambre s'est précisément prononcée sur cette question, incluant qu'il convient, je cite, « de vérifier si la divulgation était, au moment de la publication, de nature à causer aux intérêts du pays un préjudice considérable ». Aux intérêts du pays, dans Stoll, « correspondent en l'espèce le droit à la présomption
GR1 (Government): d'innocence et le bon fonctionnement de la justice pénale ».
GR1 (Government): Contrairement à ce qu'affirme le requérant, il n'y a pas, en tout cas dans son mémoire inaffirmé, il n'y a pas à cet égard une différence entre les différents buts énumérés au paradraphe 2 de l'article 10. Pas plus que pour les intérêts du pays, le gouvernement
GR1 (Government): doit apporter la preuve que la divulgation a effectivement porté préjudice à la présomption d'innocence et au bon fonctionnement de la justice. Peu importe donc que la principale
GR1 (Government): audience ait eu lieu plus de deux ans après la publication, peu importe que finalement des magistrats professionnels se fussent prononcés sur l'affaire, étant entendu que le risque d'être indument influencé n'est pas limité aux juges laïcs, et peu importe finalement l'issue de la procédure pénale. D'ailleurs, concernant cette issue, peut-on être certain
GR1 (Government): que la publication n'a pas eu d'influence? En lisant l'article, pour son auteur, la
GR1 (Government): thèse d'un acte intentionnel était la plus probable. N'oublions pas qu'en première
GR1 (Government): instance, M. B. a été condamné, entre autres, pour assassinat et tentative d'assassinat.
GR1 (Government): Deuxième ligne d'argumentation de la Chambre concernant l'atteinte à la vie privée, la Chambre dit que le prévenu disposait de recours au niveau interne pour faire réparer cette atteinte, recours qu'il n'aurait pas utilisé. Cette approche d'une soi-disant
GR1 (Government): autoresponsabilité de l'individu pour la protection de ses droits se heurte, à notre avis, à la conception des obligations positives matérielles telles que la Cour les a développées.
GR1 (Government): L'incompatibilité paraît d'autant plus évidente qu'il s'agit en l'espèce d'une personne détenue et atteinte dans sa santé psychique. Attendre de sa part de s'insurger
GR1 (Government): contre le journal n'est pas réaliste. En aucun cas, la possibilité de prendre soi-même
GR1 (Government): les choses en main ne saurait libérer les autorités de leur devoir d'assumer leurs obligations. Sur ce point également, le gouvernement invite la Grande Chambre à suivre l'opinion
GR1 (Government): convaincante de la minorité. Et finalement, la gravité de la sanction.
GR1 (Government): L'argumentation de la majorité mentant de l'amende pas négligeable, la condamnation à être seule peut importer plus que le caractère mineur d'une amende. Si cette argumentation
GR1 (Government): est pertinente en principe, elle ne convainc pas dans le cas d'espèce. Rappelons d'abord
GR1 (Government): que le requérant n'a pas fait valoir le remboursement de l'amende, ce qu'il aurait pu faire sous le titre de « dommage matériel ». On s'imagine pourquoi il ne l'a pas
GR1 (Government): fait. A part cela, on sait que dans une situation
GR1 (Government): donnée, le risque d'une petite amende ou d'un reproche de violer une règle de droit ou de déontologie n'emporte pas toujours sur la tentation d'augmenter sensiblement le chiffre de vente, ou plus généralement l'audimat TV, radio, Internet. Il y a des
GR1 (Government): journalistes qui résistent à ces tentations, assumant ainsi leurs devoirs et responsabilités.
GR1 (Government): D'autres ne résistent pas. Et il y a des affaires dans lesquelles le recours au droit
GR1 (Government): pénal répond à un besoin social impérieux. De l'avis des trois juridictions internes
GR1 (Government): du gouvernement suisse et de trois juges de la Chambre, la présente affaire en faisait partie. Le gouvernement invite donc la Grande Chambre
GR1 (Government): à conclure que les juridictions internes ont bien assumé leur part de responsabilité dans la présente affaire et à dire qu'il n'y a pas eu violation de l'article 10.
GR1 (Government): Pour ce qui est de l'éventuel octroi d'une satisfaction équitable, seule est en cause le titre des frais et des penses. Concernant la procédure devant la Chambre,
GR1 (Government): nous renvoyons au paragraphe 85 à 92 de notre mémoire. Il en ressort que toutes les notes
GR1 (Government): d'honoraires produites par le requérant étaient adressées à son employeur, raison pour laquelle le gouvernement avait conclu, se basant sur la jurisprudence Stoll et Daman, où la situation était analogue, avait conclu qu'aucun mentant n'est dû à cet égard.
GR1 (Government): Cette même jurisprudence doit s'appliquer à la procédure devant la Grande Chambre.
GR1 (Government): Le requérant ne prétend pas que c'est à lui de prendre en charge le mentant réclamé.
GR1 (Government): À titre subsidiaire, nous constatons que le requérant n'a présenté sans décompte les frais que ce matin, soit tardivement, et d'ailleurs, cette note est également adressée à l'éditeur Rangier et non pas au requérant lui-même.
GR1 (Government): À part ça, pour la seule procédure devant la Grande Chambre, le requérant réclame plus de 32 000 francs suisses, un mentant qui nous paraît largement exagéré.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci, Monsieur Schürmann.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je me tourne maintenant vers les juges pour d'éventuelles questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le juge Villiger
Mark Villiger (Judge): I have two questions about the fine of 4,000 francs imposed on the applicant.
Mark Villiger (Judge): The first question is to both parties.
Mark Villiger (Judge): How must I imagine this fine?
Mark Villiger (Judge): Does it consist of two distinct parts, a fine of 2,000 francs for the offense which we are discussing today and 2,000 francs for a previous offense?
Mark Villiger (Judge): Or did the judge, in view of the two offenses, impose a combined lump sum?
Mark Villiger (Judge): The second question goes to the applicant.
Mark Villiger (Judge): In the case file, a question has been raised by the government as to who has paid the fine of 4,000 francs imposed on the applicant, in particular, whether it was not the newspaper which paid the fine.
Mark Villiger (Judge): I would therefore wish to ask the applicant who paid the fine, you yourself or the newspaper for which you were working.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci le juge López Guerra.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): My question is addressed mainly to the government.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): The proceedings were secret according to the code of criminal procedure of the Canton of Vaud.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): Article 293 of the Swiss Penal Code establishes a general prohibition under penalty of fine to publish documents, deliberations, or investigations of any authority which are secret by law.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): In the literal words of the federal court on this case, the present case therefore concerns secrecy imposed by law rather by any official decision.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): This prohibition is, so to say, an across the board, a blanket prohibition without any reference to the presence of a public interest or to any legitimate reason to inform the public on the matters declared secret.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): The only exception of Article 293 refers to the secrets of minor importance.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): Now, my question is, in this case or in any other case which concerns specifically criminal judicial proceedings, differently from Stoll, in this case or in any other case concerning these proceedings, does this prohibition of Article 293 mean that in Swiss law any publication of a matter declared secret by law, in this case by the Code of Criminal Procedure of Canton of Vaud, any matter declared secret by law is automatically a punishable crime in the terms of Article 293 of the Penal Code?
Luis López Guerra (Judge): The government affirms that the penalty imposed was justified as protecting the presumption of innocence in the private life of the accused person.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): But my difficulty in the case is how the Swiss courts might have taken adequately account of the presence of a public interest on the information and of the consequences on the legitimate exercise of the freedom of expression when the law does not provide a toll for this aspect and imposes without exception a penalty on the publications of matter expressly defined as secret by law.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): My question is which are the practice, if any, of the Swiss courts on this matter, if there's any possibility to take into account this aspect.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci. Maintenant le juge Wojtyczek.
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): J'ai une question aux 2 parties.
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): Je souhaiterais savoir dans quelle mesure l'article publié dans l'illustré rend état de l'ensemble des informations obtenues par la rédaction.
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): Y a-t-il eu d'autres pièces du dossier qui auraient été obtenues par la rédaction dont le contenu n'a pas été révélé dans l'article et dans ce cas, quel était l'arbitraire de sélection si une telle situation de sélection d'informations a eu lieu?
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): Merci.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci. Maintenant le juge De Gaetano.
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): I have a question for both parties.
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): Could the parties explain to me the difference between paragraph one and paragraph two of article 185A of the criminal procedure of the Canton of Vaud?
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): And how, in particular, and if at all, whether sub-article two of article 185A impacts on article 293 of the criminal code, of the Swiss criminal code?
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): My impression, that I stand to be corrected, is that this point was not argued, well, at least in the papers that we have in front of us, but for the sake of clarity, for the sake of completeness, at least from my own personal knowledge to understand exactly how these two provisions interact, if at all.
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): I would like this clarification, if possible, from one of the parties or from both, if the parties cannot agree on a common ground.
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): Thank you.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je propose donc de faire une pause d'une vingtaine de minutes.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On va se revoir à 10h45.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Maître.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Non, on va faire une pause d'abord et ensuite, on reprend l'audience pour les réponses aux questions et aussi pour répondre, répliquer à ce que l'autre partie a présenté.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): L'audience est reprise et je donne la parole à M. Poncet.
AP1 (Applicant): very briefly the answers to the questions put by the court, and then a quick comment on my learned opponent's submissions.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the questions, Judge Villiger asked two questions, whether or not the 4,000 fine when pronounced by the Swiss judiciary took into account both offenses, and then who paid?
AP1 (Applicant): Let me answer the second question first.
AP1 (Applicant): Arnaud Bédard paid for the fines and for the cost of the court proceedings.
AP1 (Applicant): Incidentally, since the government made this point, it is true that Arnaud Bédard's employer advanced, let me emphasize, advanced, the necessary financial means for him to be represented in Switzerland and in this court.
AP1 (Applicant): But this by no means signifies that he would not pay anything when the case is finished.
AP1 (Applicant): There will be a division of the costs.
AP1 (Applicant): Be this as it may, Judge Villiger's first question was whether the 4,000 fine was for both offenses.
AP1 (Applicant): It's a little more complicated than that, and we looked up the relevant dates just in case.
AP1 (Applicant): On June 23, 2014, Arnaud Bédard was first given one month conditional, that is suspended, of detention, un mois d'arrêt, to use the French terminology, and then this was converted or changed to a 4,000 francs fine by the Misdemeanor Court, the Tribunal de Police de Lausanne, on September 22, 2005.
AP1 (Applicant): Now, this did take into account a previous offense that has nothing to do with this case.
AP1 (Applicant): Arnaud, I think, refused to, Arnaud Bédard refused to do his military service or his civil protection service, and I think he may have smoked pot when he was 23 years old.
AP1 (Applicant): So he had a previous, quote, conviction for smoking a joint some years before.
AP1 (Applicant): So that was taken into account when setting the first fine in September, on September 29, 2005.
AP1 (Applicant): Now, then, for the second article, which is the object of the other proceedings pending in this case, in this court, for the second article, he was given this time 5,000 francs, which he also paid out of his own pocket, plus the costs.
AP1 (Applicant): But this time, the fine was convertible, as we say, in 50 days in jail, in case he didn't pay it.
AP1 (Applicant): I don't know if that answers your question, Judge.
AP1 (Applicant): Judge Lopez's question was primarily meant for the government, so I will take the liberty not to address it, if I may.
AP1 (Applicant): As to Judge Volichek's question, whether or not the article revealed everything, or whether there were, or if there were, any other materials that the journalist had, the answer, Judge, is in the affirmative.
AP1 (Applicant): Of course, Arnaud Bédard had thoroughly investigated the matter.
AP1 (Applicant): There were all sorts of materials that were not published.
AP1 (Applicant): And the decision as to whether this would be published or not was made on the basis of his and his editor's assessment of the pertinence of the material for what l'Illustrer, in its somewhat tabloid manner, was trying to do, namely, enlighten the local population and public opinion in French-speaking Switzerland as to the personality of an individual who had committed the road murder of the century in Switzerland.
AP1 (Applicant): Excellent.
AP1 (Applicant): As to Judge de Gaetano's question with regard to Article 185A and paragraph 1 and 2 of the then existing code of criminal procedure of the Canton of Vaux, as you know, Judge, the code has now been abolished and has been substituted by a federal code.
AP1 (Applicant): But the question, nevertheless, deserves, of course, to be answered.
AP1 (Applicant): The first paragraph of Article 185A imposes a burden of maintaining secret not only on the parties to a criminal proceeding, but also to their families, friends, and, of course, their advisors, lawyers, and so on.
AP1 (Applicant): The idea is that, since it is postulated that these matters should remain secret, except when the judicial authority decides to inform the public, then the secrecy should extend also to the circle in which a person normally lives, because otherwise it would be too simple to simply whisper it to somebody else, who could then report it or publish it harmlessly.
AP1 (Applicant): However, Article 2 says, and that refers in particular to a victim, a partie civile.
AP1 (Applicant): I don't think there's any English equivalent, but a plaintiff in a criminal case, something which is germane and peculiar to civil law, that refers in particular to a partie civile, who would somebody who is the victim of a crime and would explain or tell the story to his wife, for instance, or to her husband, that would not be punishable.
AP1 (Applicant): So the answer to your question, Judge, is yes, it does institute a specific exit from the scope of it did institute at the time a specific exit from the scope or an exception to the scope of Article 293 of the Swiss Criminal Code.
AP1 (Applicant): In connection with this, actually not in connection with this, forgive me, I'd like to briefly address one factual point and one legal argument that Dr. Sherman evoked in his pleading, in his oral argument.
AP1 (Applicant): It has been said that Arnaud Bédard wrote that Boutifar was attempting or was trying to commit murders because somebody had asked him to do that.
AP1 (Applicant): That's absolutely not the case.
AP1 (Applicant): I may have misunderstood my learned opponent, but if that's what he said, it's wrong.
AP1 (Applicant): Arnaud Bédard never wrote this.
AP1 (Applicant): In a subsequent article published on July 23, 2003, Arnaud quoted one of the victims who had gone through a complicated story with one of the police inspectors involved in the case.
AP1 (Applicant): And she said that she thought Boutifar may have been induced to try to kill her intentionally.
AP1 (Applicant): But Arnaud never wrote that it had been intentional.
AP1 (Applicant): Now, one last point I would like to make, Mr. President, members of the court,
AP1 (Applicant): came to me as I was listening to Dr. Sherman.
AP1 (Applicant): Dr. Sherman is a highly respected lawyer in Switzerland.
AP1 (Applicant): He's a Swiss-German who speaks fluent French, as you've seen, a highly respected jurist.
AP1 (Applicant): And still, although he's the embodiment of what Swiss legal scholarship can create in its best, still he's here in this court trying to persuade the court that something which never happened would have justified an interference if it had happened.
AP1 (Applicant): He went as far as saying, I quote, peu importe l'issue de la procédure.
AP1 (Applicant): It doesn't matter what the outcome of the case was.
AP1 (Applicant): In other words, the Swiss government admits that the article had no consequence, no impact.
AP1 (Applicant): But still, in case it might have had some, you should still uphold Arnaud Bédard's criminal conviction.
AP1 (Applicant): As I was listening to this somewhat contradictory approach, I realized, Mr. President,
AP1 (Applicant): members of the court, that perhaps unbeknownst to this court, there is an elephant in this room, which the Swiss in this proceedings are well aware of.
AP1 (Applicant): You may have been struck, if you care to look at statistics, you may have been struck by the fact that since 2006, the Swiss government asked for 23 cases to be reheard in the grand chamber.
AP1 (Applicant): Whether these petitions were upheld or not is immaterial to the point I'm trying to make.
AP1 (Applicant): The point I would like to make is that from these 23 requests for resubmission of a case to the grand chamber, 10 were submitted in 2013 and 2014, almost half.
AP1 (Applicant): 13 were submitted since 2006 in eight years.
AP1 (Applicant): In other words, we have eight requests from the Swiss government in six years, and then 10 requests in two years.
AP1 (Applicant): Unless we are to assume that the sections suddenly start getting it wrong when Switzerland is involved, there has to be a reason.
AP1 (Applicant): And the reason, the elephant in the room, is the political pressure being exercised on the Swiss government by a populist right-wing political party known as the SVP, which stands for Schweizer Volkspartei.
AP1 (Applicant): In itself, the name is significant.
AP1 (Applicant): For some reason, it's translated into French as UDC, Union Democratique du Centre.
AP1 (Applicant): It is certainly not from the center.
AP1 (Applicant): Whether it's democratic or not will be left to debate.
AP1 (Applicant): The UDC SVP is engaged in a campaign against foreign judges.
AP1 (Applicant): That means you, and it also means the judges in the Luxembourg Court of the European Union.
AP1 (Applicant): And I was looking up their website during the break, which I have here if it kindly opens itself.
AP1 (Applicant): I was looking up their website, which features an initiative in which the following is said.
AP1 (Applicant): The Office of the Court has the reference to the website.
AP1 (Applicant): I translate from the French.
AP1 (Applicant): The Swiss constitution must be the supreme source of law of Switzerland.
AP1 (Applicant): The decisions of the people must be respected in all cases, and they must not be undermined by reference to mandatory international law.
AP1 (Applicant): We do not want any foreign judges modeling Swiss law from afar in opposition to the people and to the cantons and in lieu of the Swiss parliament.
AP1 (Applicant): And if you dig a little bit, foreign judges means foreign judges who by the UDC standards are left wing socialists who are trying to ruin all the qualities and the merits of the Swiss state.
AP1 (Applicant): This is a strong pressure on the government, and it is understandable that they should pay attention to it because a public initiative is pending.
AP1 (Applicant): However, Mr. President, members of the court,
AP1 (Applicant): this is not a reason for you to change anything in your jurisprudence.
AP1 (Applicant): It was authoritatively made clear to the Swiss parliament in a speech some months ago that Switzerland has nothing to fear from this court, nothing to fear from the European Court of Human Rights, and that whether or not 20% of the Swiss electorate thinks differently is frankly immaterial for the purposes of this court.
AP1 (Applicant): What I can tell you in conclusion is that assuming you care to hear that or you care to know that, 75% or 80% of the Swiss people live very well with the European Convention of Human Rights.
AP1 (Applicant): They know of human rights.
AP1 (Applicant): They know that they should be grateful, and there is at least one journalist and his counsel who are grateful to your court for the job it does and that we hope it shall continue to do.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci, maître Poncet.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je donne la parole à M. Schürmann.
GR1 (Government): On va d'abord essayer de répondre aux questions qui ont été posées par les juges dans la mesure où ils étaient adressés au gouvernement.
GR1 (Government): Après, j'aimerais faire quelques remarques relatives à la plaidoirie et à la réplique du requérant.
GR1 (Government): La question de M. Filiger, l'amende de 4 000 francs,
GR1 (Government): la condamnation était bien de 4 000 francs pour sept infractions qui nous occupent aujourd'hui.