TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP3 (Applicant): D'abord, un tel argument n'a jamais été soulevé par le gouvernement dans ses observations précédentes, notamment dans les observations de 2007 sur la recevabilité et le fond de l'affaire.
AP3 (Applicant): Et deuxièmement, même si la lutte contre la corruption est une politique tout à fait légitime, nous ne contestons pas la légitimité de cette politique.
AP3 (Applicant): Aucune politique, la lutte contre n'importe quel problème dans la société, même la lutte contre le terrorisme, ne justifie pas la restriction des garanties que l'article 6 accorde et ne justifie pas le positionnement des accusés dans les situations d'inégalité profonde vis-à-vis de l'accusation.
AP3 (Applicant): En ce qui concerne le caractère volontaire et le lettre d'un requérant à la procureure du 9 septembre 2004 citée par le gouvernement, il faut rappeler que ce ne sont pas les mots de requérant, ce sont d'abord les formulations standards que le procureur demande à signer de n'importe quel accusé.
AP3 (Applicant): Et par conséquent, le texte de cette lettre était proposé par le procureur.
AP3 (Applicant): Aussi, le caractère volontaire de l'accord n'est pas la seule condition de son volidité.
AP3 (Applicant): En effet, le Code de procédure pénale georgien demandait au juge de vérifier non seulement si l'accord était volontaire, mais notamment que l'accusé comprenne les faits qu'il admette et que, aussi, l'accusé comprend qu'il renonce à ses droits procéduraux, notamment le droit d'être jugé sur le fond.
AP3 (Applicant): À aucun moment, le juge n'a posé les huit questions que le Code de procédure pénale l'exige de demander à l'accusé, mais seulement la question sur le caractère volontaire de l'accord.
AP3 (Applicant): Cela nous rappelle l'affaire McCarty versus United States de l'accord suprême américain.
AP3 (Applicant): Et je dirais que l'absence de caractère volontaire ou pression n'est pas le seul vice que l'accord procédural peut être entaché.
AP3 (Applicant): Donc, il peut être conclu volontairement, mais sans compréhension de rénonciation des droits.
AP3 (Applicant): Il peut être conclu volontairement, mais dans une situation où, nous disons, il était le premier requérant, dans la situation où les droits de l'accusation et de la défense n'étaient pas égaux.
AP3 (Applicant): Et c'est aussi un vice qui nous amène à la conclusion qu'il y avait une violation de l'article 6.
AP3 (Applicant): Quant à l'article 6, paragraphe 2, certes, le gouverneur de Côte d'Ivoire n'a pas mentionné le nom de requérant dans son interview.
AP3 (Applicant): Mais il disait que ceux qui détournent les fonds publics sont des criminels.
AP3 (Applicant): Et cela était sur le fond des images de requérants qui viennent d'être arrêtés.
AP3 (Applicant): Donc, il est aussi clair que possible que le procureur de Côte d'Ivoire a parlé de requérants.
AP3 (Applicant): Et quant au caractère volontaire de la venue des journalistes avec le procureur, si le gouvernement nous dit que le procureur ne les a pas invités, alors d'où, de quelle source les journalistes savaient que le procureur va en tel moment arriver au bureau de requérant et l'arrêter?
AP3 (Applicant): Donc, soit c'était le procureur qui les a invités, soit il y avait une fuite d'informations énormes sur les actions du procureur de bureau de procureur.
AP3 (Applicant): En ce qui concerne l'article 34 et l'applicabilité de l'article 62 du règlement de la Cour, nous notons un problème dans les observations du gouvernement.
AP3 (Applicant): Certes, et nous l'admettons, la Convention permet non seulement les négociations sur le règlement amiable dans le cadre de procédures devant la Cour, mais aussi des négociations hors cadre de cette procédure.
AP3 (Applicant): Mais alors, le régime juridique de ces deux procédures est différent.
AP3 (Applicant): Et l'article 62 s'applique seulement aux procédures qui sont menées dans le cadre de la considération de l'affaire par la Cour.
AP3 (Applicant): Le gouvernement insiste que les négociations sur plaidés coupables ou au moins la partie judiciaire de ces négociations étaient ouvertes, mais en même temps, il insiste sur le fait que les mêmes négociations, mais au niveau interne, étaient confidentielles.
AP3 (Applicant): Donc, de deux choses.
AP3 (Applicant): Ici, je réponds aux questions du juge Sotsovia, qui parle de l'initiation des négociations.
AP3 (Applicant): Donc, c'est par email du 29 novembre 2006 que Tina Burgeljiani, qui est de ministère de justice géorgienne, a adressé à la fille du récréant, mademoiselle Nancy Vichlwili, que cette lettre demande la conclusion de règlements à l'amiable et demande à la fille du récréant et à la partie récréante d'être patriote dans cette heure difficile pour la géologie.
AP3 (Applicant): Or, des telles phrases liées à une demande de ne plus maintenir la requête ne sont que la pression sur le récréant, et c'est après madame Burgeljiani qui demande à la fille du récréant de l'appeler, et c'est comme ça que les négociations ont été entamées.
AP3 (Applicant): Donc, en ce qui concerne les griffes tirées de l'article premier du protocole premier de la Convention, le gouvernement nous dit que la cession des actions était une coopération avec l'enquête, mais nous l'avons démontré que la définition de ce qui constitue la coopération avec l'enquête n'était pas claire et le procureur pouvait déterminer ce qui ne constitue pas la coopération avec l'enquête à son gré.
AP3 (Applicant): Or, une telle base légale n'est pas conforme aux exigences de la sécurité juridique inhérentes à l'article premier du protocole additionnel à la Convention comme à d'autres dispositions de la Convention.
AP3 (Applicant): Nous ne contestons pas le paiement de 35 000 laris comme amende et le gouvernement se trompe sur ce point.
AP3 (Applicant): Par contre, en question, nous constatons le paiement de 50 000 laris à la fondation de l'Etat et la cessation des actions, donc qui, à notre avis, n'étaient pas faites à la base légale prévisible.
AP3 (Applicant): Dernièrement, je voudrais répondre à la question du juge Gullemain.
AP3 (Applicant): Si le requérant comprend qu'il pourrait être la réouverture de son procès et de nouvelles charges contre lui si la Cour constate une violation de l'article 6.
AP3 (Applicant): Notre position est la suivante.
AP3 (Applicant): D'abord, il faut que la Cour constate une violation de l'article 6 et nous l'invitons à la faire.
AP3 (Applicant): Mais après, la réouverture de la procédure en termes n'est pas automatique.
AP3 (Applicant): Il est une pratique constante du comité de ministre qui surveille l'exécution des arrêts, notamment suite à l'arrêt dans l'affaire Moïsev contre la Russie, qu'il n'est pas possible d'ouvrir la procédure, d'ouvrir une nouvelle procédure au niveau interne suite à l'arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme sans une demande explicite du requérant.
AP3 (Applicant): Or, après que la Cour rend son arrêt, nous pourrons l'examiner et après présenter du conseil au requérant pour voir si une telle réouverture aura des conséquences positives ou négatives pour lui.
AP3 (Applicant): Et je conclue sur la question encore du juge Tsotsoria, à savoir quand la Cour était proposée au requérant et pourquoi elle l'a acceptée si tard.
AP3 (Applicant): La Cour, oralement, était proposée au requérant dès le premier jour de son détention.
AP3 (Applicant): Après l'arrestation, il a été dit que soit tu payes les amendes, soit il est possible de passer plusieurs années en prison.
AP3 (Applicant): Donc pourquoi il l'a acceptée si tard?
AP3 (Applicant): Il est vrai qu'il a résisté à la détention dans la même cellule avec ses ravisseurs et après il a cédé seulement après avoir transféré dans une autre cellule.
AP3 (Applicant): C'était le jeu que le procureur menait de bons policiers et de mauvais policiers.
AP3 (Applicant): Donc après que le requérant était assujetti à des conditions plus restrictives, plus difficiles, quand il était dans des conditions moins restrictives, il avait peur que ça revienne.
AP3 (Applicant): Surtout, et cela conclut mes observations, le requérant a toujours insisté sur son innocence.
AP3 (Applicant): D'ailleurs, il n'a jamais admis sa culpabilité dans les procédures enterres.
AP3 (Applicant): C'est pourquoi même la Cour n'a pas en cause sa position qu'il était innocent.
AP3 (Applicant): Merci, Monsieur le Président.
AP3 (Applicant): Nous invitons la Cour de constater les violations de la Convention comme nous l'avons demandé.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Merci Monsieur Koroteev.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): J'appelle Mr. Meskhoradze.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): You can dispose with 12 minutes.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, Your Excellencies, let me first rebuke some points raised by the applicants
GR1 (Government): in their submissions, and may then I reply to the questions posed by this honorable court. Mr. President, in their submissions made on behalf of the applicants, our respectful
GR1 (Government): colleagues stated that there was no recording, no record or protocol subsequent to the negotiations drawn up after the meeting on 9 September 2004. Your Excellencies, in front of me I
GR1 (Government): have a document. This is a record which states that even itself in the penitential institution
GR1 (Government): subsequent to the meeting, the record was drawn up. Most importantly, this record was
GR1 (Government): signed by the applicants, by their representatives, and by the prosecutor. Nothing in the case
GR1 (Government): file suggests, and despite the invitation, the applicants did not submit it or did not disclose, even in the course of the communication, observations made in the course of the pleadings, no this morning, that such intention to cooperate and to enter into plea bargain agreement was made under the pressure or influence. Therefore, my submission is that the applicants'
GR1 (Government): submission statement is inaccurate. Same stands with regard to the issue that the domestic
GR1 (Government): court did not in detail and in substance examine the case file under consideration.
GR1 (Government): Your Excellencies, protocol which is in the case file also before this Court states that the judge acquired information during the proceedings on national level whether there was a pressure or influence, questions were separately posed to the parties. Also, the
GR1 (Government): evidences which were included in the case file was requisitely considered by the judge, and subsequently the approval of the plea agreement took place.
GR1 (Government): Hereby I would like to note that the criminal case file, which was 12 volumes, 9 volumes out of the 12 was financial documents. Only 3 volumes concerned the criminal investigation,
GR1 (Government): and most importantly, those 3 volumes were against 3 persons. In fact, only 1 volume
GR1 (Government): concerned the applicants. Therefore, the argumentation that domestic court quickly
GR1 (Government): examined the case file is not substantiated. And hereby I would like to note that
GR1 (Government): the main substance and essence of concept of the plea bargaining means that no court case file is determined in detail, no witnesses are examined, no cross-examination take place. This is the main characteristic of these concepts. In comparison
GR1 (Government): to a full-scale trial, this fact does not render that the proceedings were fair.
GR1 (Government): And in comparison to ordinary hearings, such proceedings may take short time than the proceedings which I mentioned above. Now I would like to move on the questions
GR1 (Government): posed by the honorable judges. I would like to start by the question posed by Judge
GR1 (Government): Sotsoria about the initiating of the plea bargaining procedure. According to the
GR1 (Government): criminal case file, plea bargaining procedure was initiated on 9th September, 2004, by the applicants, subsequent to the acquaintance with the criminal case file and charges which were brought against him on 6th September, 2004. Though being
GR1 (Government): exclusive prerogative of the prosecutor, initiating a criminal plea bargaining procedure, nothing prevents the applicant to express the intention to cooperate or enter into the procedure. And this fact that the applicant expressed first the
GR1 (Government): initiation and intention to cooperate does not have any negative consequences vis-a-vis the guarantees under Article VI of the Convention. As regards to the second
GR1 (Government): question, which is about the payments made in the course of the plea procedure, I would like to note that on 6th September, 2004, when final charges were brought against the applicant, the letter expressing his intention to cooperate, transferred the shares to the States, there is nothing in the case file that states that the applicant is not willing to cooperate. Despite the invitation to the applicant
GR1 (Government): to propose anything, if there is something at your disposal, that such intention was made under pressure or intention to return the shares to the States under pressure or influence. As regards to the fines, they were paid on 9th September, 2004.
GR1 (Government): And the deposit, which does not mean the payment, according to the case file, and there is a document in the criminal case file, this fine will be executed only after the agreement on plea bargaining was adopted by the domestic courts.
GR1 (Government): With your permission, now I would like to move to the question posed by Judge Blumian about the possibility for the applicant to reject the plea agreement.
GR1 (Government): Your Excellency, Georgia legislation in force at the material time provided such possibility to reject the agreement before it is approved by the domestic courts.
GR1 (Government): It is not subject to Article 6793eG, which stipulates that before the adoption of the final conclusion on the case by the courts, convict or accused defendant may refuse or may choose oral hearing of the case in such circumstances.
GR1 (Government): And this is explicitly noted in the abovementioned article. As regards the question
GR1 (Government): in the -- in respect to Article 34 of the Convention, I would like to note that, first of all, to ascertain whether there was a hindrance in exercise the right to petition, communication as a whole should be generally examined.
GR1 (Government): Extracting certain passages or splitting the messages which we are exchanged may lead us to the wrong direction. As regards this specific passage which was mentioned
GR1 (Government): by Judge, stipulates that the representative of the prosecutor's office expressed the desire to open the case in a manner that might declare defendant or convict in that particular time wanted. Your Excellencies, the Georgian legislation
GR1 (Government): in force did not foresee the possibility to reopen the case or to declare convict wanted. In general, and in theory, it's only possible in the course of the newly
GR1 (Government): established law. It's worth the note in this respect that even though the friendly
GR1 (Government): settlement negotiations did not finish successfully, there was no negative consequences with regard to this particular case. Nobody was declared wanted or no hindrance
GR1 (Government): took place subsequently or beforehand. As regards the possibility to return the fine
GR1 (Government): and financial payments to the applicants in case the friendly settlement negotiations were concluded successfully, Your Excellency, this kind of exchange of information was in the course of the friendly settlement negotiations.
GR1 (Government): If the agreement was made, such payment, ex gratia, could be made for the execution in the course of the execution of the decision which would be rendered by this honorable court, and such payment could be enforced. If you don't have any further questions,
GR1 (Government): with your permission, I would like to stop here and thank you for your kind attention.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Well, we have now come to the end of the hearing.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): I thank the parties for their interventions and answers to the court's questions.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): The court will now deliberate on the merits.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Have a nice day.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Söderman v. Sweden.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Until recently, when the applicant decided to waive to anonymity granted to her, this case was called E.S. v. Sweden.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): The case was lodged on the 21st of January 2008 with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention by a Swedish national, Mrs. Eliza Söderman.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): On the 21st of June 2012, a chamber of the Fifth Section delivered its judgment in the case, finding that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): On the 19th of September 2012, the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, and the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on the 19th of November 2012.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): On 7 February 2013, the President of the Grand Chamber granted leave to the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University to submit written comments as a third party by virtue of Rule 44.3 of the Rules of the Court.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Mr. Anders Rönquist,
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Ambassador and Director General for Legal Affairs, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, assisted by Mrs. Gunilla Isaksson and Mr. Olof Widgren, co-agents,
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): as well as Mr. Mathias Säfsten, Mrs. Viveca Lång and Mr. Carl Rosenmüller, advisors.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Jan Södergren, Mr. Kenneth Lewis and Clarence Crawford, counsel.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): The applicant is also present.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): I also welcome a group of Georgian magistrates and lawyers, the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors of Turkey, as well as a group of Japanese judges who are visiting the Court.
Josep Casadevall (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 authorised for the benefit of the delegation of Turkish judges and prosecutors attending this hearing.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): This interpretation is not arranged by the Court and no transcription of the oral translation will be included in the official record of the proceedings.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Having consulted the agent of the government and the representatives of the applicant, I have determined the order of address as follows.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Mr. Crafoord, followed by Mr. Lewis and Mr. Södergren for the applicant will speak first
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): and then Mr. Rönquist for the government.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): I give the floor to Mr. Crafoord.
AP1 (Applicant): Honorable European judges, and learned colleagues, this case is about a 14-year-old girl who was secretly filmed by her stepfather while undressing and taking a shower.
AP1 (Applicant): A serious violation of the personal integrity, and at the same time, an abuse of a child.
AP1 (Applicant): I think we all agree that the 14-year-old girl, or anyone else for that matter, should not have to be exposed to that kind of behavior.
AP1 (Applicant): We can also all agree that this once 14-year-old girl, who has now, after all the legal proceedings, turned 25, Elisa Söderman, sitting here today, did not receive any form of redress for this violation in the Swedish national system, even though she tried to.
AP1 (Applicant): And the applicant's position is that this failure is a result of a flaw in Swedish law.
AP1 (Applicant): I would like to draw the court's attention to a case from the Swedish Supreme Court, case NJA 2008, page 946, concerning covert filming in that case of an adult.
AP1 (Applicant): The Swedish Supreme Court stated the following, and I quote, it is highly questionable whether the fact that acts of filming of an individual in situations where such filming deeply violates the Swedish law and violates the personal integrity of the person concerned are left wholly unsanctioned under Swedish law.
AP1 (Applicant): Is that compatible with the requirements of Article 8 of the European Convention?
AP1 (Applicant): A fact that these acts are left wholly unsanctioned according to the Swedish Supreme Court.
AP1 (Applicant): The Swedish Supreme Court obviously found that there is such a flaw that we are talking about regarding covert filming and the Convention rights.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the Swedish Supreme Court did not find reason to go further, and instead, practically speaking, dropped this issue into the lap of the legislator.
AP1 (Applicant): We have recently seen a late recognition from the Swedish government, that is not from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but from the Ministry of Justice, that there, in fact, is such a flaw in the law, and that this flaw must be taken care of.
AP1 (Applicant): It must be blocked.
AP1 (Applicant): This is the whole meaning with the Swedish government's new proposal for legislation on offensive photography, proposal 2012-13-169.
AP1 (Applicant): However, this proposal has not yet led to any new legislation.
AP1 (Applicant): But even when, or rather if, this proposal leads to new legislation, one thing is clear.
AP1 (Applicant): It will not lead to any redress for the applicant or anyone else in her position.
AP1 (Applicant): This potential new legislation might have an effect for other future victims under the condition that this proposal eventually will pass in the Swedish parliament.
AP1 (Applicant): If that happens, it will not change the outcome for the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): So it is now up to this grand chamber to establish if Sweden has violated the applicant's rights under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): And we assume that when the grand chamber performs this important task, it does so with an obvious starting point in the principle of the effectiveness of the Convention, which is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory, but rights that are practical and effective.
AP1 (Applicant): That follows from, for example, the 1979 Arie v.
AP1 (Applicant): Ireland case and the 1980 Ortega v. Italy case. After this short introduction,
AP1 (Applicant): the address by the applicant will be disposed in three parts.
AP1 (Applicant): Firstly, Mr. Kenneth Lewis will evolve the question of the flaw in Swedish law which
AP1 (Applicant): resulted in this failure of the Swedish State to provide Elisa Söderman protection of her rights under Article 8. Mr. Lewis will thereafter deal with the question
AP1 (Applicant): of whether the flaw in Swedish law was significant. And after that, Mr. Jansz
AP1 (Applicant): Söderman will address the issue of the national court's positive obligation to provide sufficient protection for the rights of the Convention at the national level. The applicant is a bit mindful that the chamber did not address this issue.
AP1 (Applicant): In the applicant's opinion, this is an important issue, causing problems for the national judiciary with embarrassing results. Mr. Söderman will consequently
AP1 (Applicant): deal with this matter in some detail at the end of the applicant's presentation.
AP1 (Applicant): Honorable Ukraine judges, thank you.
Josep Casadevall (JudgeP): Thank you, Mr. Crafoord.
AP4 (Applicant): Your Honors, since the presentation must be short, I refer to our observations from February, and especially our late observations from March of this year.
AP4 (Applicant): My colleague has already mentioned the opinion of the Swedish Supreme Court regarding the lack, the entire lack of sanctions for covert or illicit filming in Swedish law.
AP4 (Applicant): My colleague also mentioned that the Swedish government has proposed new legislation on offensive photography.
AP4 (Applicant): On page 10 of this proposal, the government noted that while some kinds of covert photography might be criminalized under various sections of the criminal code, jurisprudence had shown that in many cases, the courts had been unable to convict person for these offenses.