TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): It was published in Svyazin Form magazine, number six, in 1999, and available in national constant database and in internet, and attached to applicants' submission to the court.
GR1 (Government): That's why it was published completely with all amendments.
GR1 (Government): Answering the question two by Judge Zimily, I should tell that exercising their personal search measures, namely control and record of telephone conversation, the state guarantees their citizens' rights in part of keeping and deleting of data received as a result of this interception.
GR1 (Government): The number subject, the terms of storage, the order, and the duty of destroying of data, and existing the strict judicial control are the factors of non-violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): The disclosure of this information entails criminal liability of relevant state officials.
GR1 (Government): Consequently, the absence of notification of telephone interception is well-balanced by available set of effective remedies applicable in criminal and civil proceedings.
GR1 (Government): See, for example, Merch and others versus Luxembourg.
GR1 (Government): There are multiple examples of such remedies in the form of judicial decisions rendered by the Russian courts, though exposed as their addendum to the memorandum of Russian authorities to these hearings.
GR1 (Government): Answering the question three by the Judge Lemons, I should tell that we, in Russian Federation, we have federal law on state secret.
GR1 (Government): This law contains the information on the data which could be represented as state secret and who exactly exercised this power.
GR1 (Government): And we also like to state that, in accordance with the Civil Procedure Court of the Russian Federation, any citizen can challenge actions or omissions of any state authorities and decisions.
GR1 (Government): And there presented some information as the state secret could be appealed to the court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr Matyushkin.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr Leach or who wants to take the floor? Mr Leach.
AP4 (Applicant): Mr. President, thank you.
AP4 (Applicant): May I start with Judge Lemon's question about state secret?
AP4 (Applicant): And as the government has said, it's subject to the Federal State Secrets Act.
AP4 (Applicant): In our submission, that allows a very wide range of public officials, even junior public officials, to classify documents and information as being secret.
AP4 (Applicant): There is one body, one commission, that is able to declassify information.
AP4 (Applicant): We say it's a body that's not independent.
AP4 (Applicant): And it's extremely difficult in practice to challenge the decisions of that body in the courts.
AP4 (Applicant): And then staying on that point, the state secrecy point in relation to this particular case, we also refer to Article 12 of the 1995 Act, which sets out the information which is secret under the 1995 Act.
AP4 (Applicant): I'm just looking for that provision.
AP4 (Applicant): So the Article 12 of the 1995 Act says that the following is a state secret in relation to searches under the Operational Search Activity Act and other forms of surveillance.
AP4 (Applicant): It says, the information on the forces, the means, the sources, the methods, the plans, and the results of this operational search activity, and then goes on to list other things.
AP4 (Applicant): Those are state secrets under Article 12.
AP4 (Applicant): And I think that's an important point to underline.
AP4 (Applicant): May I then turn to Judge Sicilianos' question about the impact of Order Number 70, the addendums to which have not been published.
AP4 (Applicant): I want to just stop there for a moment, because contrary to what the government has said, the government has again asserted today that the publication in a magazine, which hasn't been disclosed, the actual publication, publication in a private database and on the internet is sufficient.
AP4 (Applicant): Nor is it relevant that the fact that this applicant, who is an investigative journalist, was able to obtain a copy and submit it in the domestic proceedings.
AP4 (Applicant): Under the Russian regulations themselves, under the Constitution and the 1998 regulations, those laws must be published and certified by the Ministry of Justice.
AP4 (Applicant): So it cannot be said that they were published.
AP4 (Applicant): And Judge Sicilianos' question was about the impact of that provision on the various safeguards.
AP4 (Applicant): We would want to emphasize that the provision requires mobile phone operators to set up the technical means for the FSB to remotely control the monitoring equipment inside the phone networks.
AP4 (Applicant): This is a system, a regime, that's very unusual in Europe.
AP4 (Applicant): And we say it's especially intrusive.
AP4 (Applicant): What happens in most countries in Europe is that the state bodies would require the telephone companies or the internet service providers to have the capability to undertake lawful interception.
AP4 (Applicant): And the phone companies are served with the warrants so that they can then switch on their intercept capability.
AP4 (Applicant): And that's not what happens here.
AP4 (Applicant): We say it's exceptionally intrusive and therefore underlines even further the need to have adequate legal safeguards.
AP4 (Applicant): And as you heard from us today, we say very clearly it doesn't.
AP4 (Applicant): If I could then turn to Judge Turkovich's question about domestic remedies.
AP4 (Applicant): And the government started off the morning talking about domestic remedies.
AP4 (Applicant): And our position on this is very, very clear.
AP4 (Applicant): Mr. Zakharov was not in a position
AP4 (Applicant): to know if he was or wasn't subject to surveillance because of the nature of secret surveillance.
AP4 (Applicant): He brought domestic judicial proceedings which established that he could not, in fact, in practice challenge the surveillance regime because he was required to prove that his phones were tapped.
AP4 (Applicant): He went to the town court and to the city court.
AP4 (Applicant): He brought proceedings against the mobile phone operators and the Ministry of Communications and the FSB complaining about his right to privacy in relation to telephone communications.
AP4 (Applicant): And those claims were rejected.
AP4 (Applicant): There is also clearly in Russian law no judicial review available of unpublished regulations because they are said to be technical.
AP4 (Applicant): This is confirmed by the Supreme Court decision and a high commercial court decision that we've referred to in our pleadings.
AP4 (Applicant): And that's as a result of a 1998 federal cabinet decree.
AP4 (Applicant): Now, the government has also referred in its pleadings to various Article 125 appeals and civil claims, which, as Mr. Korotayev has already said,
AP4 (Applicant): they relate to searches of premises and seizure of documents and computers, search and seizure.
AP4 (Applicant): By definition, of course, the defendants in those cases would have been aware.
AP4 (Applicant): We make the point that, of course, whereas someone subject to secret phone tapping has no knowledge that they are so subject to the interception.
AP4 (Applicant): So it's a completely different situation.
AP4 (Applicant): The constitutional courts in Russia would only be able to consider points that were an issue in the domestic proceedings and that were cited by the lower courts in their reasoning.
AP4 (Applicant): And the constitutional court only permits abstract challenges to legislation.
AP4 (Applicant): And we refer also on this point to the judgment last week, this court's judgment last week in Avonissian against Russia, 18th of September, which was another case about a search under this same act, the Operation Search Activities Act of 95.
AP4 (Applicant): And in that case, the applicant brought supervisory review proceedings, which were dismissed.
AP4 (Applicant): He also brought constitutional court proceedings, which were also dismissed.
AP4 (Applicant): And the court in that case found violations of Article 8 and Article 13.
AP4 (Applicant): A few other points to conclude with, Mr. President, if I may.
AP4 (Applicant): The government in its 2014 submissions and referred again today to a small number of domestic criminal cases.
AP4 (Applicant): And I just wanted to refer to those because we say that, actually, those criminal cases confirm that the authorization process is flawed.
AP4 (Applicant): They're full of examples.
AP4 (Applicant): Very quickly, the Supreme Court judgment of December 2012 shows that surveillance took place before judicial authorization was granted.
AP4 (Applicant): And therefore, the domestic courts themselves said it was unlawful.
AP4 (Applicant): A decision from Krasnyi Arsk shows that surveillance was authorized against the wrong person.
AP4 (Applicant): The decision from the Republic of Marielle had a number of problems.
AP4 (Applicant): The judge's order for surveillance was inadequate.
AP4 (Applicant): There was no concrete data serving as a basis for making the decision.
AP4 (Applicant): The judgment contained only general wording, no reference to the criminal code, didn't have sufficient information on actual circumstances of the wrongful act being committed, and so on.
AP4 (Applicant): And finally, there were two other cases in which unlawful surveillance was carried out by public officials.
AP4 (Applicant): So we say on their evidence that this authorization process is flawed.
AP4 (Applicant): We also want to emphasize that in response to what the government said, the 1995 Act has no requirement to consider the necessity of the surveillance measures, contrary to what the government, I think, seems to be suggesting.
AP4 (Applicant): And one can make a very, very stark contrast with legislation such as the REPA legislation in the UK, which very clearly incorporates proportionality and necessity tests.
AP4 (Applicant): The government referred today to the possibility of the judge in the authorization process requesting additional materials.
AP4 (Applicant): And this is Article 9.4 of the 1995 Act.
AP4 (Applicant): So there is a possibility to request additional materials.
AP4 (Applicant): We note, though, that there is an exception.
AP4 (Applicant): There are several exceptions.
AP4 (Applicant): And the exceptions include the organization and tactics of the operative search action.
AP4 (Applicant): So the judge is excluded from asking for additional materials about the organization and tactics of the operative search action, which seems to us to be extraordinarily broad and includes information that the judge would require to carry out a proper review.
AP4 (Applicant): The government, again today, acknowledged that under this system, unidentified persons can be subject to surveillance.
AP4 (Applicant): That hasn't really been explained today or in the written pleadings, we say.
AP4 (Applicant): But it seems to be a fishing expedition.
AP4 (Applicant): The capability of the authorities to, for example, locate who was in a particular area at a particular time through this surveillance, the SORM system.
AP4 (Applicant): And finally, we also heard today that the offenses which can be subject to surveillance include medium gravity, as well as serious offenses.
AP4 (Applicant): And most of the cases that this court has considered have related to serious and very serious cases.
AP4 (Applicant): They don't, the domestic legislation doesn't include medium gravity cases.
AP4 (Applicant): Just one example for you, in Russia, the offense of pickpocketing is a medium gravity case and therefore could be subject to this surveillance.
AP4 (Applicant): Mr. President, that concludes the submissions
AP4 (Applicant): on behalf of the applicants.
AP4 (Applicant): Thank you very much.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The Court will now deliberate on the admissibility and merits of the case.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Music versus Croatia.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on 17 December 2012 under Article 34 of the convention by a Croatian national, Mr. Christian Music.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the first section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the rules of the court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 12 March 2015, a chamber of that section delivered a judgment in which it declared the applicant's complaint under Article 3 of the convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible and held that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 10 June 2015, the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): And the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 6 July 2015.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 6 and 16 October 2015, respectively, the president of the Grand Chamber granted leave to the International Observatory of Prisons, French section, the Human Rights League, Belgium, the European Prison Litigation Network, and to the Documentation Center, L'Altro Diritto, to submit written comments as third parties by virtue of Rule 44, Paragraph 3 of the rules of the court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Mrs. Štefica Stažnik, assisted by Mr. Alan Mostovac, Mrs. Marijana  Konforta, and Mrs. Martina  Barić, advisors.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Zoran Vidović, counsel, assisted by Mrs. Aleksandra Vidović, advisor.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I also welcome a delegation of judges, lawyers, and university professors from Italy who are on a study visit to the court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Mr. Vidović for the applicant will speak first,
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): and then Mrs. Stažnik for the government.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting from Croatian has been authorized for the benefit of the applicant's representatives.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Although that interpreting is arranged by the court, no transcription of the oral translation will be included in the official record of the proceedings.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I call Mr. Vidović.
AP1 (Applicant): Ja ću na hrvatskom, kakvom je i dopušteno.
AP1 (Applicant): Pod 1. Prvo pozdravljam i zahvaljam se na mogućnosti da ponovno ovom predmetu
AP1 (Applicant): se pozovemo na određene činjenice, odnosno damo dodatno objašnjenje u ovom predmetu.
AP1 (Applicant): Pod 1. U pogledu dopustivosti zahtjeva, podnositelj zahtjeva je pred Ustavnim sudom Republike Hrvatske
AP1 (Applicant): prigovorio utvrđenim zakonskim uvjetima i u biti je ukazao na povrede zbog nedostatka osobnog prostora i nemogućnosti rada u zatvoru u kojem je boravio u Bjelovaru.
AP1 (Applicant): S toga smatramo da je iznošenjem svojih prigovora pred Ustavnim sudom Republike Hrvatske podnositelj zahtjeva istrpio sva domaća pravna sredstva na temelju čega je mogao pristupiti i na ovaj sud.
AP1 (Applicant): Navedeno proizlazi iz prvenstvenog sadržaja Ustavne tužbe i pozivanjem na povredu odredbe Zakona o izvršenju kazne zatvora koje odredbe i odgovaraju člancima 23 i 25 ustava Republike Hrvatske odnosno članku 3 konvencije o zaštiti ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda.
AP1 (Applicant): Ustavni sud je doduše odbacio tužbu smatrajući da ne postoje ustavotvorne bit stvari o kojoj Ustavni sud raspravlja što smo smatrali pogrešnim stajalištem obzirom se podnositelj zahtjeva u svojoj tužbi poziva na neadekvatnu sudsku zaštitu i diskriminirajući položaj zatvorenika temeljem članka 74 ustavak 3 Zakona o izvršenju kazne zatvora koji izričito propisuje da za svakog zatvorenika u spalovnici mora biti najmanje 4 m2 i 10 m3 prostora dok je sud na vedenu odluku tumačio da isto predstavlja samo preporučeni minimalni standard koji može biti objektivno ograničen zavisno od stvarnog građevnog stanja zatvorskog objekta što je naravno suprotno citiranom članku koji izričito i decidirano određuje u prisimnoj i obligatornoj normi riječju mora što je bio dovoljan razlog i osnov za postupanje u ovom predmetu kako pred Ustavnim sudom tim više što je u nekim slučajima i u sličnim predmetima zauzeto potpuno drugo stajalište na koje se poziva i vlada Republike Hrvatske tokom ovog postupa.
AP1 (Applicant): Dalje smatramo da je Ustavni sud trebao utvrđivati povredu na kojoj mu je ukazano temenjem cijelokupnog predmeta obzirom se Ustavna tužba podnosi kao pojedinačni akt tijela državne vlasti kojim je odlučeno o pravima i obvezama, a povrijeđeno ljudsko pravo ili temena sloboda zajamčena Ustavom temenjem Ustavnog zakona Republike Hrvatske izvudeći iz toga da je nepotrebno Ustavnu tužbu opterećivati posebno detaljima i dodatnim obrazloženjima. U odnosu na Ustavnu tužbu
AP1 (Applicant): kao pravno sredstvo kojom se strklju domaće pravna sredstva, smatramo da je bitno napomenuti da su donijete i predsude ovog suda, na primjer u predmetu Pilić kontra Hrvatska, broj 33138 od 2006. u kojoj sud ocjenjuje nebitnim pitanje da li podnosite iz zahtije uopće
AP1 (Applicant): je podniju Ustavnu tužbu obzirom je utvrđena praksa Ustavnog suda da otvrdi kako su Ustavne tužbe koje se tiču osnovalnosti određenog predmeta nedopuštene ili presudu u slučaju Longin također protiv Hrvatske 49268 kroz 10 premo koji je zahtjev pred Evropskim sudom smatran dopuštenim iako postupak po Ustavnoj tužbi još uvijek je bio u tijeku za vrijeme podnošenja zahtjeva ovom sudu.
AP1 (Applicant): Stoga smatramo da zadovoljenje članka 35 stavka 1 konvencije o ispravnom iscrpjenju domaćih pravnih sredstava utvrđuje i ovaj sud u samoj presudi, tako da u tom smislu ne bi detaljnije elaborirali, nego ostajemo kod podnjetog zahtjeva odnosno prijedloga da isti stav zadrži i ovo veliko viječe.
AP1 (Applicant): Drugo, sam osnov zahtjeva. Tokom cijelokog postupa vlada Republike Hrvatske,
AP1 (Applicant): pa tako i u posljednjem svojem očitovanju ovom velikom viječu, općenito idealizira stanje i uvjete u kaznjonicama i zatvorima u Republici Hrvatskoj, osobito u ovom konkretnom zatvoru u Bjelovaru, a koji se nalazi u sklopu starog kompleksa zgrada izgrađenog još u početku XIX. stoljeća u vrijeme Austro-Hungarske monarhije,
AP1 (Applicant): doduše djelomično adaptirane, ali bez bitno izmijenjenih i poboljšenih uvjeta za same zatvorenike.
AP1 (Applicant): Posobno je da su na same zgradi djelomično neki uvjeti promijenjeni, odnosno poboljšani, ali prvenstveno za potrebe suda, dok u zatvorskom dijelu je ostalo gotovo neizmijenjeno.
AP1 (Applicant): Nažalost, zgrada puna vlage s neadekvatnim prostorom za kraće boravljenja pritvorenika, što je prvenstveno bila i namjena, a posebno za njihovo duže boravljenje, koje izvješća same vlade kako se gotovo svake godine prostori obnavljuju uređenjem i bojanjem zidova, što pokazuje da je prostor neadekvatan i vlažan, sa kojeg otpada boja i žbuka, jer u protivnom to ne bi trebalo činiti svake godine.
AP1 (Applicant): Tijekom celog ovog postupka nastoji se od strane vlade prikazati stanje u bitno boljem stanju od stvarnog, koja uvijek sključi ši starost i vlažnost prostora kao jednog od osnovnih nedostataka kojima je boravak sam po sebi nedostojan čovjeka.
AP1 (Applicant): Kad se tome doda i preveliki broj zatvorenika koji su smješteni u takvom neadekvatnom prostoru u odnosu na njihovu veličinu, sa WC-ima koji nisu definirani i potpuno odjeljeni od ostatka prostorije, bez dovoljno i tople vode, sa konzumiranjem hrane u samom tom prostoru sa stolom udaljenom pola metra od WC-a, bez dovoljno adekvatnih mogućnosti za držanje osobnih stvari, nedovoljno mjesta za sjedanje, tuširanje, eventualno tri puta tjedno i osobito činjenice da su zatvoreni više od 20 sati dnevno, ukazuje naopčenito loše i nedostojne uvjete u kojima zatvorenici, odnosno podnositelj zahtjeva, je izdržavao kaznu u zatvoru Bjelovaru.
AP1 (Applicant): Osim toga, sve navedene navodne kulturne i sportske aktivnosti kao i program obrazovanja postoje u predmetnom zatvoru samo kao teoretska mogućnost.
AP1 (Applicant): U praksi to ne funkcionira, program obrazovanja u zatvoru Bjelovaru nije moguće provesti, jer za to nema ni prostora, ani drugih uvjeta, dok se sami sportski tereni i teretana nalaze na otvorenom, u dvorištu zatvora, pa zbog toga, ako ništa druga, zbog vremenskih uvjeta i zimskog perioda ili kišnjih dana se uopće ne mogu koristiti, dok i u ostalim dijelu godine, obzirom se zatvorenici puštaju iz svog zatvorenog prostora samo tri sata na dan, što je rečeno i od strane uprave zatvora od 16 do 19 sati.
AP1 (Applicant): Taj izvještaj je i u ovom predmetu dostavljen, a vidljivo je i iz samih fotografija da onda taj prostor ne mogu adekvatno ni koristiti. Vlada se dalje,
AP1 (Applicant): dostavljajući dokaze o prihvatim uvjetima u zatvoru, a ispuštajući kod toga navesti da su određene promjene, doduše vršene, ali u 2011. godine, dakle u vrijeme,
AP1 (Applicant): što je priloženo i sa fotografijama iz 4. i 5. mjeseca 2011. godine,
AP1 (Applicant): i to zatvorskih prostora 2 i 9, u kojima u to vrijeme i u tom prostoru podnosite zahtjeva uopće nije boravio. Dakle, sve navedeno potvrđuje
AP1 (Applicant): i pritužba samog zatvorenika, odnosno samih zatvorenika od 1. 11. 2010. godine,
AP1 (Applicant): koja je u ovom prilogu isto tako dostavljena, i to 14-orice zatvorenika, sucu izvršenja, u kojima navode sve navedene činjenice, kao i da prilikom posjete samog suca nisu mogli iznijeti navedene primjetbe, jer su obilansak vršio uz prisutstvo upravitelja zatvora i pravosudih policajaca, iz kojeg razloga se nisu mogli izjasniti o stvarim uvjetima i stvarnim problemima zbog gubitka, bojazni gubitka ostvarenih pogodnosti. Zbog toga uporno isticanje da ne naknadno
AP1 (Applicant): promjenjenim uvjetima u zatvoru, ukoliko su se ostvarili, potpuno su nebitni u odnosu na današnje i tadašnje stanje, jer od 2009. do 2011. podnositelj
AP1 (Applicant): zahtjeva bio je smješten u zatvor u bijelom, u potpuno neadekvatim uvjetima dostojnih, usvojenih standarda boravka zatvorenika na izvršenju kazne.
AP1 (Applicant): Navedeni uvjeti boravljenja zatvora dodatno i bitno su otežani zbog prekapacitiranosti samog prostora, koji je bio kapaciteta 53 zatvorenika, navodno dodatno povećenog na 79, ali bez bitne promjene u bilo kom dijelu prostora, a u stvarnosti konstantno preko 100 zatvorenika, odnosno kontinuirano više od 100% od utvrđenog, a to smo mogli i utvrditi preko izjave samog upravitelja zatvora kod posjeta delegacije Županije u 11. mjesecu 2010. godine,
AP1 (Applicant): kad je izričito naveo da je u tom momentu u zatvoru 129 zatvorenika ili 243% više, odnosno popunjenosti, točnije opterećenosti.
AP1 (Applicant): Takvo kontinuirano stanje, nažalost, je neki kontinuitet što je utvrdilo i Ministarstvo pravosuđa, uprava za zatvorski sustav, sa svojim izvješćem od petog studenog 2013. godine, u kojem svojemo čitovanju
AP1 (Applicant): o mjerama poduzetim prema preporukama Evropskog odbora za sprečavanje mučine, neljudskog i ponižavajućeg postupanja ili kažnjavanja, navodi, u kojem se posebno brojno stanje zatvorenika i maloljetnika u zatvorima sustavno od 2010. gdje je dosegnut maksimum, do opadanja na 31.12.2011.
AP1 (Applicant): ali samo u neznatnom dijelu, dakle nebitne promjene koje bi poboljšale stanje i uvjete u zatvorima. Navedeno je izvješće konkretno za zatvor u dijelu
AP1 (Applicant): i zatvor u Bjelovaru, navodi da je tijekom 2012. započeta aktivnost za potrebe
AP1 (Applicant): rekonstrukcije dijela objekta u kojem je smješten zatvor i koji će rezultirati dodatnim prostorom za smještaj, ali 15 zatvorenika, adekvatnim prostorima za pohranu arhivske građe, kao i poboljšanim prostorom kuhnje u kojoj se pripremaju obroci za zatvorenike s pratećim prostorijama za pripremu namjenica i skladište. Vrijednost investicije je 500.000 kuna,
AP1 (Applicant): koje izvješće samo pokazuje da su potpuno netočni navodi o uvjetima zatvora u Bjelovaru, odnosno njegovu višesroku prekapacitiranost, naravno za vrijeme kad je u njemu boravio podnostje zahtjeva.
AP1 (Applicant): Također Ustavni sud o uvjetima života u zatvorima od 12.6.2014,