TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP2 (Applicant): We've also taken steps to follow up with the applicants as to the documentary evidence which is relied upon by the government as to the compensation payment which was made.
AP2 (Applicant): Now those materials do appear to show that a payment of 23,000 lira was paid to the Burkiakoy Enforcement Office in 2007.
AP2 (Applicant): And we've managed to follow up that those funds do appear to have been collected by the applicant's legal representative in Turkey at the time.
AP2 (Applicant): However, despite the applicant's repeated and insistent attempts to contact that legal representative since discovering this information, they have been absolutely unable to do so.
AP2 (Applicant): This is a matter plainly that the applicants will need to follow up and may need to seek redress for in their own domestic legal system.
AP2 (Applicant): But whatever the position is with that payment of compensation, even if it had been paid to the applicants, which it certainly was not, there's simply no proper legal basis for suggesting that the administrative court's judgment has any impact on the applicant's victim status in these proceedings for the reasons that I've already outlined.
AP2 (Applicant): We also say that it's simply not right for the government to complain that their own late objection is due to the fault of the applicants.
AP2 (Applicant): If the applicants themselves didn't know of the negligence claim, how could they raise it at an earlier juncture?
AP2 (Applicant): Finally, the applicants would like to touch upon the series of cases relied upon by the government in paragraph 22 of its observations.
AP2 (Applicant): We say that those cases are irrelevant to the present case as they relate to deaths caused by medical negligence, where that medical negligence has been expressly acknowledged by the domestic court.
AP2 (Applicant): We say that they bear no application to a case where an inadequately investigated death during military service has taken place, and particularly in circumstances where the independence of that investigation is itself in question.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, I just have one comment, and that is in relation to the issue of the independence of military prosecutors,
AP1 (Applicant): I've given the answer in respect of the position as far as the Constitutional Court is concerned, but I would obviously remind this Court that throughout Europe there are various guidelines in all jurisdictions which press upon the issue of independence, and namely of prosecutors, to present the evidence and make investigations in a fair-minded way.
AP1 (Applicant): And of course that does also apply in relation to this particular issue.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Dalyan.
GR1 (Government): The questions raised in general by the distinguished and honorable judges in general require a more comprehensive work and analysis.
GR1 (Government): And if you allow, Mr. President, we would like to provide our replies in writing at
GR1 (Government): a later stage in a more comprehensive manner.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Yes, I will grant you two weeks to file answers to the question if you need to reflect on it.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Of course, your answers will be communicated also to the other party, as we always do in such circumstances when you need time to answer to questions of judges.
GR1 (Government): But at this stage, we would like to shortly reply to these questions in the light of information that are available to us at the moment.
GR1 (Government): The questions of obligation to inform the applicants and the rules governing relatives' access to the file, and legal and administrative provisions governing the position of military prosecutors will be replied by Mr. Hussein Chekhan, who
GR1 (Government): was used to be a military prosecutor and judge.
GR1 (Government): He's, of course, in the best position to reply to these questions.
GR1 (Government): He will also reply to the question as to the rules governing the right to access of applicants to the investigation in the military justice system.
GR1 (Government): If you allow, Mr. President, I would
GR1 (Government): like to give some information while keeping our right to give more comprehensive answer in writing.
GR1 (Government): My answer to the question of asking information about the gendarmerie units intervening in the incident, in the investigation, and their position within the armed forces, hierarchical structure within the armed forces.
GR1 (Government): As I presented in our written observation and in my oral presentation, the technical investigative team, the scene investigation team was serving under the Diyarbakir military command, where the prosecutor is based.
GR1 (Government): And as soon as the Diyarbakir public prosecutor was informed of the incident, he immediately ordered the Diyarbakir gendarmerie incident investigation team to go to the hospital and to the incident scene.
GR1 (Government): And the team divided into two groups.
GR1 (Government): One went to the hospital, and the other one went to the incident scene.
GR1 (Government): And both teams performed their tasks under the order and supervision and monitoring of the relevant prosecutors.
GR1 (Government): I should stress that nobody involved from the Kocaköy provincial gendarmerie command, which was guarding the private oil company where the incident occurred, nobody involved from that command in the investigation process, including one of the possible suspects, as seen at the beginning of the investigation, who is Mehmet Sıcak.
GR1 (Government): And those who were involved in the incident only provided the first aid to Cihan Tunç, who was seriously wounded in the place.
GR1 (Government): And these soldiers carried the body to the dining hall, and then two of them took the body to the hospital in Diyarbakir.
GR1 (Government): As I said, only the Diyarbakir incident examination team went to the scene and went to the hospital for performing judicial tasks.
GR1 (Government): So when they were acting, performing judicial tasks, they were under the command, under the order, and under the monitoring of the military prosecutor.
GR1 (Government): This is the requirement of criminal procedural code.
GR1 (Government): Of course, when we looked at the Kocaköy gendarmerie command, the officers from that Kocaköy gendarmerie command and the scene investigative team, they were both under the command of Diyarbakir gendarmerie command for their administrative and military tasks.
GR1 (Government): They are not under the command of Diyarbakir gendarmerie command.
GR1 (Government): They were under the order and monitoring of the public prosecutors.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, this is my question to that question,
GR1 (Government): my answer to that question.
GR1 (Government): And we will provide more comprehensive information to that question.
GR1 (Government): Please now give the floor to my colleague, Mr. Hüseyin Çeker.
GR2 (Government): Mr. President, distinguished members of the Grand Chamber,
GR2 (Government): my name is Hüseyin Çeken.
GR2 (Government): I am a military judge at the rank of colonel.
GR2 (Government): During my military career, I served as both military prosecutor and military judge.
GR2 (Government): At the moment, for the last eight years, I've been working for the legal division of the Turkish Ministry of Defense.
GR2 (Government): First of all, I would like to give some brief information about the status and independence of the military prosecutors.
GR2 (Government): And then we'll try to give some answers to your questions.
GR2 (Government): Mr. President, the status of the military prosecutors
GR2 (Government): is governed by the law number 357 on the status of the military judges.
GR2 (Government): Although the law says the military judges, it covers both the judges and the prosecutors.
GR2 (Government): And that means that the prosecutors have the same constitutional status and safeguards like judges.
GR2 (Government): The military prosecutors, they are selected, trained, appointed in line with the procedures applicable to the judges.
GR2 (Government): They cannot be appointed to another post before a duration of four years.
GR2 (Government): In accordance with the Article 95 of the law number 353, which is on the establishment of the military courts and their trial procedures, in cases where there is a person's death, the military prosecutor can directly engage into a criminal investigation ex officio.
GR2 (Government): Furthermore, no one can give orders or canalize him to one direction, the military prosecutor, related to the conduct of an investigation.
GR2 (Government): As regards to the questions, in particular, the one relating to the constitutional court's latest decision about the non-judge member of the military courts, let me first say that this is only for the non-professional member of the military courts.
GR2 (Government): It only covers the field officers who were at that time ordered by the commanders to sit on the panel.
GR2 (Government): But in the last three years, we have abolished this provision of the court.
GR2 (Government): And at the moment, the military courts in Turkey, they are established by three professional judges.
GR2 (Government): None of them are field officers.
GR2 (Government): And those military judges are educated through law schools.
GR2 (Government): They join the armed forces after an apprenticeship period.
GR2 (Government): And during that apprenticeship period, in the training period, they also take some time in the civilian courts.
GR2 (Government): They are professional attorneys, actually.
GR2 (Government): And military prosecutors are evaluated in three dimensions.
GR2 (Government): First, the superiors who are military prosecutors can evaluate them.
GR2 (Government): But the commanders cannot evaluate the military prosecutors.
GR2 (Government): In the military prosecutor's office, most probably we have more than one military prosecutor.
GR2 (Government): And the most senior one is the chief military prosecutor.
GR2 (Government): And the others are assistant military prosecutors.
GR2 (Government): The assistant military prosecutors are evaluated by the chief military prosecutor.
GR2 (Government): Even the chief military prosecutor, they are not evaluated by the commanders.
GR2 (Government): The second dimension of their evaluation process is vesting with the Supreme Military Court of Cassation's evaluations.
GR2 (Government): As you know, the military prosecutors, they write indictments to the court, military courts.
GR2 (Government): And in case those case files are referred to the Court of Military Supreme Cassation, the evaluators in that high military court, they make some evaluations about the military prosecutors.
GR2 (Government): And not only the indictment, but also the investigative steps they must have taken during that investigation period is also overviewed.
GR2 (Government): And the third dimension of their evaluation process is with the Ministry of Defense.
GR2 (Government): We have a special branch under the command of the Ministry of Defense.
GR2 (Government): And within that branch, we have senior military judges who are sent annually to the military courts to review the case files and also the military prosecutors' decisions of non-prosecution of an investigation.
GR2 (Government): And at the end of this evaluation, if they find any failure with the decisions of military prosecutors concerning the decisions of non-prosecution, they might argue this and bring the case file, investigation file, to the Ministry of Defense.
GR2 (Government): And then they may ask, by way of the Ministry of Defense, to further investigative steps.
GR2 (Government): And in this particular case, we see that the inspectors coming from Ministry of Defense Legal Division, they found no failure with the particular investigative investigation file.
GR2 (Government): As regards to the right information about the investigation in question, the military criminal investigations are also confidential, like their counterparts in the civilian life.
GR2 (Government): They are confidential.
GR2 (Government): But the commanders next to which the military court is established might have some chances to ask the military prosecutor to give him some information about the course of the investigation.
GR2 (Government): And the applicants, they might make use of this opportunity.
GR2 (Government): They might consult to the commander.
GR2 (Government): And then the commander might request some information regarding the course of the criminal investigation.
GR2 (Government): In case such a bad occurrence take place within the army, this is notified to the relatives of the people or the people who are badly influenced by the event.
GR2 (Government): They are very fastly notified by the administration.
GR2 (Government): It is not the prosecutor who notifies the relatives.
GR2 (Government): It's the administration, the commander, and its staff who notifies the relatives of the people who are badly affected in the event.
GR2 (Government): And this doesn't take more than 24 hours.
GR2 (Government): It comes usually in a couple of hours.
GR2 (Government): At the end, the result of the investigation is formally passed and announced to the relatives of the people who are affected.
GR2 (Government): And they have the right to rebut the decisions made by the military prosecutors within a time limit of 15 days.
GR2 (Government): And also, the military prosecutor's assignment process is independent from the administration.
GR2 (Government): The military prosecutors, like military judges, they are assigned to further posts by way of a governmental degree prepared and signed by the Ministry of Defense, the prime minister, and the president.
GR2 (Government): The lower levels, the land forces command or the brigadiers, the corps commanders, they have no influence and right to make an influence on the assignment process of the military prosecutor.
GR2 (Government): And again, brother Sergeant General, I would like to offer my thanks and congratulations especially for the military prosecutor's assignment process that has amounts of  Lands Forces Command, for his supreme ability to pursue the mission in 1,000 people who were killed, but whose stories are remains of PTSD.
GR2 (Government): We are pleased that you are dedicated to this committee that has long over 100.
GR2 (Government): And in addition, Mr. Gupta for thanking hisльjik four
GR2 (Government): thousand with this very wonderful contribution that you
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Bonjour, je salue tous les participants à cette audience publique devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme sur le fonds de l'affaire Végotex International SA contre Belgique.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): L'audience se tient par visioconférence en cause de la crise sanitaire.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): À cet égard, je voudrais commencer par remercier la partie récréante et le gouvernement pour leur coopération dans la préparation de cette audience que je déclare à présent ouverte.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Le webcast sera disponible sur le site internet de la Cour aujourd'hui à partir de 14h30.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): L'affaire a été introduite devant la Cour le 10 septembre 2009 par une société anonyme de droits belges Végotex International SA en vertu de l'article 34 de la Convention.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Elle a été attribuée à la première section de la Cour conformément à l'article 52, paragraphe 1 du règlement de la Cour.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): La requête a été communiquée au gouvernement le 14 mai 2018.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Le 10 novembre 2020, une chambre de la troisième section a rendu son arrêt.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Elle a déclaré la requête recevable et a conclu à l'unanimité à la non-violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention du fait de l'intervention du législateur au cours de la procédure, à la non-violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 du fait de la substitution des motifs opérés par la Cour de cassation et à la violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 en raison de dépassement de délai raisonnable.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Le 9 février 2021, la partie récréante a demandé le renvoi de l'affaire devant la Grand-Chambre conformément à l'article 43 de la Convention et cette demande a été acceptée par le Collège de la Grand-Chambre le 8 mars 2021.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Le gouvernement est représenté par son agent, madame Isabelle Niedlispacher, du Service public fédéral de la justice, assisté de maitre Rafaël Jafferali-Conseil.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): La partie récréante est représentée par maitre Paul Wouters-Conseil.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): A un consulté, l'agent du gouvernement et le représentant de la partie récréante, j'ai fixé ainsi l'ordre de parole.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Nous attendrons successivement maitre Wouters par la récréante,puis madame Niedlispacher et maitre Jafferali pour le gouvernement.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): La parole est à maitre Wouters, s'il vous plaît.
AP1 (Applicant): Je vous remercie, Monsieur Président.
AP1 (Applicant): Monsieur Président, Mesdames, Messieurs les juges de la Cour, je voudrais d'abord m'excuser pour mon absence physique devant vous dans la salle d'audience et je vous remercie d'avoir organisé cette audience par visioconférence.
AP1 (Applicant): Je me réfère évidemment aux différentes écrits qui ont été déposées dans cette affaire et je me focaliserai surtout sur le sentiment d'injustice énorme que ma cliente essaiera de vous expliquer lors de ma présentation.
AP1 (Applicant): En fait, de quoi s'agit-il?
AP1 (Applicant): La problématique de base est un problème en droit fiscal belge qui a connu beaucoup de péripéties pendant les années 80 jusqu'à maintenant.
AP1 (Applicant): À un moment donné, il y a eu des arrêts de la Cour de cassation dans l'année 2002, suivi par quelques autres arrêts dans lesquels notre haute jurisdiction dit en droit qu'un commandement en matière fiscale qui est signifié à un contribuable pour un impôt et ou une majoration d'impôt qui n'est pas exécutoire parce que le contribuable conteste.
AP1 (Applicant): Cette créance ne peut pas avoir un effet interruptif de la prescription.
AP1 (Applicant): On essaiera, j'ai l'impression, de présenter ces arrêts devant votre cour comme étant des coups de tonnerre par ciel bleu, mais ce n'est pas du tout le cas.
AP1 (Applicant): Le législateur a réagi lorsqu'il prenait connaissance de cette jurisprudence qui n'était pourtant pas neuve par une intervention prise dans la loi programme du 22 décembre 2003.
AP1 (Applicant): Et il est clair qu'à ce moment-là, il y avait une discussion de savoir si oui ou non, que cette intervention législative serait seulement valable pour le futur ou est-ce que ça aurait aussi un effet pour le passé.
AP1 (Applicant): Le Conseil d'Etat, lorsqu'il donnait son avis pour le Parlement, avait évidemment soulevé cette question et avait dit clairement au législateur que si on voulait faire cela et que pour le passé, on changera la situation,alors la il faudrait avoir des arguments sérieux pour défendre, pour fonder cette rétroactivité.
AP1 (Applicant): Si vous allez vérifier dans les travaux parlementaires de cette loi programme du 22 décembre 2003, vous allez constater que dans le Parlement, les parlementaires finalement sont arrivés à la conclusion qu'ils ne trouvaient pas d'argument sérieux pour donner un effet rétroactif à leur intervention.
AP1 (Applicant): Cette loi est entrée en vigueur début janvier 2004 et la doctrine fiscale, on a déduit tout de suite que la situation était telle que le législateur n'intervenait que pour le futur.
AP1 (Applicant): On est alors début 2004.
AP1 (Applicant): Ma cliente qui avait une procédure pendante devant les tribunaux, à ce moment-là, a constaté que tout le monde était d'accord que le législateur belge ne intervenait que pour le futur.
AP1 (Applicant): Dans le stade de sa procédure, il était devant la cour d'appel au moment de l'introduction de son appel et conformément à cette confiance et à ces paroles qu'il pouvait lire dans les travaux préparatoires, il invoquait l'argument disant que, écoutez, mais dans mon cas d'espèce, la prescription est déjà acquise depuis le 15 février 2001.
AP1 (Applicant): Grande stupéfaction de mon client parce qu'il venait juste d'avoir cette confirmation que seulement l'intervention ne visait que le futur, qu'il pouvait lire aussi des paroles du ministre des Finances qui, dans le Parlement, avait déclaré, lorsque l'on sollicitait quand même d'autres interventions du législateur, basé sur une affirmation claire et nette de ce que voulait le législateur à ce moment-là et qui consistait à dire, dans un état de droit, nous devons bien entendu respecter la décision d'un juge, mais dans les circonstances actuelles, nous n'avons pas la moindre chance d'obtenir gain de cause devant le tribunal, pour le passé évidemment.
AP1 (Applicant): Alors, à ce moment-là, le ministre des Finances a répondu et déclaré, compte à savoir, dit-il au parlementaire, si nous devons aller plus loin ou pas, c'est un choix à faire par le gouvernement comme par le Parlement, et ce choix a été fait.
AP1 (Applicant): Lutter contre la fraude est une chose, mais commettre ce qui pourrait être qualifié d'abus de pouvoir ou de discrimination grave me paraît un peu plus dangereux.
AP1 (Applicant): Donc, à ce moment-là, ma cliente, lisant cela, elle se dit, ils ne vont quand même pas oser changer le passé.
AP1 (Applicant): Et c'est ce qui s'est fait, et c'est cette intervention législative qui vise une problématique que l'État belge a perdue devant l'ordre judiciaire, de le rendre, en changeant le passé et en faisant de cela sorte que l'État belge puisse encore gagner ses procédures.
AP1 (Applicant): Alors, ma cliente n'est pour rien dans toute la problématique de cette prescription.
AP1 (Applicant): Tout ce qu'elle a fait, c'est contester son impôt qui a été enrôlé pour un exercice d'imposition de 1993.
AP1 (Applicant): Le directeur régional, qui était compétent pour statuer sur sa réclamation dans la phase administrative, il a pris 4 ans et 7 mois avant de statuer.
AP1 (Applicant): Il n'avait aucun délai pendant lequel il devait le faire, et ma cliente, d'autre part, n'avait aucun moyen pour pouvoir bouger ce directeur en lui indiquant, en lui demandant, mais prenez une décision, finalement.
AP1 (Applicant): Ma cliente n'avait aucune possibilité de le faire.
AP1 (Applicant): En fait, si vous constatez que ces 4 ans et 7 mois correspondent déjà à eux seuls au délai de prescription qui est de 5 ans, on ne saurait pas nier le fait que ce dépassement du délai raisonnable est déjà à l'origine et même la cause principale que la prescription fut atteinte, finalement.
AP1 (Applicant): Ce dépassement dans la phase administrative était lui-même dû à l'arriéré structurel qu'éprouvait l'administration dans le traitement de l'afflux des réclamations dans la phase administrative pendant les années 80 jusqu'en 1999.
AP1 (Applicant): Alors ici, je dois quand même insister sur un petit point, mais qui a quand même son importance, c'est-à-dire que jusqu'ici, j'ai lu qu'on considère que ma cliente avait déjà la possibilité de faire avancer cette phase administrative depuis le 6 avril 1999, puisqu'en 1999, le législateur a modifié le système du traitement des recours fiscaux devant les tribunaux.
AP1 (Applicant): J'avoue que je me suis trompé moi-même en indiquant la mauvaise date de la loi dont il s'agit.
AP1 (Applicant): C'est une loi non du 15 mars, mais une loi du 23 mars 1999, qui évidemment, pour éviter que lorsque on change, on mettait la possibilité dans le chef d'un contribuable d'enlever la procédure devant le directeur et d'aller tout de suite devant le tribunal, que pour éviter que ceci donnerait pour les anciens, réclamation, un afflux devant les tribunaux qui seraient submergés tout de suite, le législateur a décidé dans son article 11 alinéa 2 de cette loi de dire que pour les réclamations qui concernent les exercices d'imposition 1998 et plus anciens, et je rappelle, on est ici pour un exercice d'imposition de 1993, que cette possibilité n'était offerte avec un effet de retard à partir du 1er avril 2001.
AP1 (Applicant): Alors à ce moment-là, notre directeur régional avait déjà statué, je pense que c'était fin décembre 2000.