TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): if they enjoy the same favorable family unification rights as refugees under the 51 convention, this will have very far reaching consequences.
GR1 (Government): We believe we believe it would affect the room for maneuver of European countries to secure a humane and a balanced response to present day challenges.
GR1 (Government): And to respond to to the potential for a new, overwhelming influx.
GR1 (Government): So turning to the present case, if the court should conclude that beneficiaries of subsidiary protection who have fled a general situation in their home country should be treated the same way as beneficiaries of subsidiary protection who have fled due to personal grounds, the Danish legislator would be in a very difficult position. I have to say that.
GR1 (Government): And and to comply with the court's conclusion, the Danish legislator would basically have to choose between two options.
GR1 (Government): The first option would be to abolish the waiting period altogether.
GR1 (Government): And the second logical position or option would be perhaps more likely option would be to to restrict the access to family reunification in a similar way for all beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.
GR1 (Government): That is, of course, assuming that the convention allows for a distinction between refugees under the 51 convention and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.
GR1 (Government): But as indicated, the second option would probably be the choice to secure that recent years, rising influx of asylum seekers from regions of conflict is managed and absorbed in a responsible and in a balanced way.
GR1 (Government): And this way, what may today be perceived as a victory for the applicant may in fact, depending on the resulting choices of our legislator, but may in the in the end turn out to be to the detriment of others.
GR1 (Government): And with that, I would like to conclude. Thank you.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I call now Mr. Dahlager for the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): I will try to respond to the questions in the order that they have been posed to us.
AP1 (Applicant): First, Judge Schurges, who asked how many times did my client apply, and why did it take so long?
AP1 (Applicant): Well, as mentioned by the judge, he applied in November 2015, and that application was flatly denied on basis of the three-year rules without any consideration whatsoever on the particular matters in pertaining to my client's case.
AP1 (Applicant): In April 26, 2018, he applied again.
AP1 (Applicant): And why did he apply in April 2018?
AP1 (Applicant): Because he was granted protection in June 2015.
AP1 (Applicant): So was he able, actually, to apply a couple of months before the three-year period?
AP1 (Applicant): Yes, he was, because under the law, there is a possibility or a requirement, I think, also, as the government has mentioned, that you are able to apply two years and 10 months after initially granted protection.
AP1 (Applicant): So April corresponds to exactly two years and 10 months.
AP1 (Applicant): That's why he applied then.
AP1 (Applicant): And then it has been sort of indicated by the government that he applied again in January 2019.
AP1 (Applicant): And that is what I said under my submission, definitely wrong, because what he did on January 2019, that was merely a letter or a follow-up from our offices providing additional information to the authorities, in particular, because they contested that he has been married to his wife.
AP1 (Applicant): So they required a marriage license from Syria, which was very difficult to obtain in the course of the civil war in Syria.
AP1 (Applicant): So that also indicates why it took so long.
AP1 (Applicant): The reason was that there was a requirement for the marriage license, and also because it is, as a matter of fact, very difficult to get in touch with the immigration authorities pertaining to these matters.
AP1 (Applicant): And we used, in our office, considerable time upon this.
AP1 (Applicant): Then turning to the question asked by Judge Schulich, regarding the possible exemptions under 9C.
AP1 (Applicant): From the preparatory work, and I have actually quoted that in my last submission in January on page six, it is very clearly stated when an exception may be made.
AP1 (Applicant): Because what it says is, and that's at the bottom of page six, is that, as previously, family reunification must be granted also within the first three years of residence in Denmark if dictated by Denmark's international obligations.
AP1 (Applicant): And that sounds very assuring.
AP1 (Applicant): But in the next sentence, it says, this applies, for example, if the alien resident in Denmark cared for a disabled spouse in the country of origin before leaving that country of origin, or if the alien resident in Denmark has seriously ill minor children in the country of origin.
AP1 (Applicant): So, exemptions are limited to very, very few instances.
AP1 (Applicant): And replying to the sort of pointed way to put it, that 25% of applications was given, is sort of not at the point.
AP1 (Applicant): Because that only goes to those applications that are submitted before the three years waiting period.
AP1 (Applicant): So out of those that are submitted, I think it was 79, 25% are accepted, which is actually a very low number.
AP1 (Applicant): But if you want to compare, then of course what is relevant is to see the overall amount of applications, also including those applications that has been forwarded after the three years waiting period.
AP1 (Applicant): And that is sort of the relevant figure, and not saying 25% of those few applications filed before they actually was allowed to file because of the three year waiting period.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. Judge Villanova asked,
AP1 (Applicant): why did my client not apply for asylum?
AP1 (Applicant): Well, I can only refer what my client has told me.
AP1 (Applicant): And he has said that it was not possible for them to flee together from Syria.
AP1 (Applicant): They thought it was too dangerous.
AP1 (Applicant): They thought it would be too troublesome for her to follow.
AP1 (Applicant): She is also at old age.
AP1 (Applicant): And I also think, he's a proud man, that he indicates that they financially didn't have the means.
AP1 (Applicant): I think this way of doing it is not far from what is the ordinary way, and what we have seen from historical point that the normal is that the stronger person goes first, and then relying on family reunification with spouses, and this is normally provided under international law.
AP1 (Applicant): I think also I was asked, how did she manage in Syria?
AP1 (Applicant): I don't know for sure, because she finds it difficult to speak about it.
AP1 (Applicant): I can only say, to the other question that was asked, did she have any employment in Syria?
AP1 (Applicant): No, she did not have any employment in Syria in that period.
AP1 (Applicant): Then, Josh Edisquas has asked, I think I said it was pure speculation, and I apologize, I think I got a little bit carried away when I was submitting my oral, orally submitting.
AP1 (Applicant): I have a little bit strong wording, but I would maintain that the justification for the three-year rule is based on merely presumptions, and assumptions, and political considerations.
AP1 (Applicant): I think this is pretty much clear, if again going back to the preparatory work, and page 5 of my written submission, what the government says there, and the majority of politicians says to justify the rule is, and I'm quoting, this group's need for protection is generally of a more temporary nature, as the need for protection is based on a general situation which may change.
AP1 (Applicant): And actually the same has been said by the government today.
AP1 (Applicant): This is just a statement, a three-line statement.
AP1 (Applicant): There is no data, there is no evidence, there is no considerations regarding the specific nature of the war in Syria.
AP1 (Applicant): The international consideration in 2015, was it likely that the war in Syria that had been going on for years should end suddenly, enabling my client to go back home in 2016.
AP1 (Applicant): I don't think this is sufficient to support a heavy and strong limitation of ordinary family rights for people in need of protection.
AP1 (Applicant): I think that was the questions asked to me, and maybe I will just make one final comment, and which is that I think the government has said today that there is a consensus in Europe on waiting periods.
AP1 (Applicant): This is a rather pointed argument, and it is not in accordance with what the government has submitted in its written submission, because from the written submission it appears that actually a very few numbers, a few countries in Europe, probably four, at the very best five, has measures that are comparable to the Danish three-year rule.
AP1 (Applicant): So thinking and alleging that there is a European concession on this is not true, and in particular there is no concession among those, I think it's 47 contracting parties, that certainly do not have similar rules.
AP1 (Applicant): And this is my final word today.
AP1 (Applicant): Thank you, members of the court.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): We have now come to an end in the hearing.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I want to again, on behalf of the court, thank all the participants this morning for this unique hearing in the history of the court and for your submissions and your answers to the questions posed by judges.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The judgment will be delivered at a later date, and the parties will be informed of the date of delivery.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The hearing is therefore closed.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Asseyez-vous s'il vous plaît. Je déclare ouverte l'audience publique sur le fond
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): de l'affaire Mocanu et autres contre Roumanie. A l'origine de l'affaire se
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): trouvent trois requêtes introduites devant la Cour par Mme Anca Mocanu, l'association 21 décembre 1989, M. Teodor Mărieş et M. Marin Stoica qui ont
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): saisi la Cour le 28 janvier 2009, le 13 juillet 2007 et le 25 juin 2008 respectivement en vertu de l'article 34 de la Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Les requêtes ont été attribuées à la troisième section de la Cour conformément à l'article 52, paragraphe 1 du règlement de la Cour.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le 13 novembre 2012, une chambre de la troisième section a décidé de joindre les trois requêtes et a rendu un arrêt. Dans celui-ci, la chambre a déclaré
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): les requêtes recevables quant au grief tiré de l'article 2 de la Convention pour ce qui est de Mme Mocanu, de l'article 3 de la Convention pour ce qui est de M. Stoica et de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): pour ce qui est de l'association requérante.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Elle a déclaré les requêtes irrecevables pour le surplus.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): La chambre a conclu à la violation des articles 2 et 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention et à la non-violation de l'article 3.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le 12 février 2013, M. Stoica a demandé le renvoi de l'affaire
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): devant la grande chambre conformément à l'article 43 de la Convention et cette demande a été acceptée par le collège de la grande chambre le 29 avril 2013. Par la suite, l'organisation non-gouvernementale
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The Redress Trust a été autorisée à soumettre à la grande chambre les observations comme tiers intervenants.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le gouvernement est représenté par son agente, Mme Catrinel Brumar du ministère des Affaires étrangères, assisté de Mme Dragoș Dumitrache, co-agent, et de Mme Geanina Munteanu, conseil.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mme Mocanu et l'association "21 décembre 1989", sont représentés par M. Ioana Sfîrăială et M. Antonie Popescu, conseil.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): M. Stoica est représenté par M. Diana-Olivia Hatneanu, conseil.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ils sont aussi présents, M. Stoica et M. Mărieş, présidents de l'association,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): "21 décembre 1989". Je salue les comparants au nom de la Cour.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je salue également une délégation de magistrats français de l'École nationale de la magistrature et une délégation de juristes et magistrats moldaves en visite à la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je veux expliquer qu'en suite de l'interprétation dans les deux langues officielles de la Cour, l'anglais et le français, l'interprétation du roumain vers les langues officielles a été autorisée pour les interventions de M. Sfîrăială et M. Popescu.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ayant consulté l'agente du gouvernement et les représentants des requérants, j'ai fixé ainsi l'ordre de parole. Nous entendrons successivement M. Hatneanu
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): pour M. Sfîrăială pour les requérants, puis Mme Brumar et Mme Munteanu pour le gouvernement.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): La parole est à M. Hatneanu.
AP1 (Applicant): Merci.
AP1 (Applicant): I will address the Grand Chamber on behalf of Marine Stoica, the applicant in one of the three applications joint into the case brought before the Grand Chamber today.
AP1 (Applicant): The case bears on an important issue, the positive obligation of a high-contracting party to the European Convention on Human Rights to carry out effective investigations into mass violations of human rights.
AP1 (Applicant): It is the applicant's stand that events which unfolded in Romania on 13-15 June 1990, in which more than a thousand individuals were victims of brutal repression orchestrated by the government, represent a mass violation of human rights.
AP1 (Applicant): In this context, I will briefly refer to the facts in respect of Mr. Stoica.
AP1 (Applicant): He was an undisputed victim of ill treatment during the events.
AP1 (Applicant): His deprivation of liberty on the premises of the Romanian public television on the night of 13-14 June 1990, the recording being available in the case file.
AP1 (Applicant): The deprivation of liberty and the ill treatment were perpetrated by law enforcement officials, not private individuals.
AP1 (Applicant): And the wounds he sustained during the night were documented in his medical records with the emergency hospital in Bucharest, where he was brought in a state of unconsciousness.
AP1 (Applicant): While it is true that the applicant did not lodge a formal criminal complaint until 18 June 2001, criminal files into various other complaints were opened by the authorities starting 1990.
AP1 (Applicant): Nevertheless, no effective investigations were conducted at all until October 1999, when the prescription was already met for many of the crimes involved.
AP1 (Applicant): And even further, until May 2000, when a prosecutor decided to continue the investigations in respect of the all of the 1,300 victims of the events, the applicant included, even if he was not named as such.
AP1 (Applicant): The decision clearly points out that the domestic authorities considered that the only way to investigate the various incidents of June 1990 was to take them as a whole, as they were not accidental and independent instances, when state agents and private actors resorted to lethal force.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, at that point, the events were investigated not only as regular crimes under Romanian criminal code, but also as crimes against peace and humanity, for example, genocide and inhuman treatment, crimes that do not fall under the prescription of criminal liability regime.
AP1 (Applicant): This approach is supported also by the fact that less than a month after the applicant filed a criminal complaint, and contrary to the government's submissions, the applicant did file criminal complaints, as they were directed not only to various authorities, but also to the police and the prosecutor's office.
AP1 (Applicant): On 16 July 2001, the complaint was joined to the criminal file on the events as a whole, and remained so until the criminal procedures were terminated in 2009 due to prescription for part of the crimes and to inadmissibility for the crimes against peace and humanity.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant complained against the prosecutor's decision up to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, which issued a final decision in 2011.
AP1 (Applicant): Both the prosecutor's decision on the appeal and the decision of the High Court are part of the case file and have been referred to in the chamber judgment.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, the government's claim that Marin Stoica had not complained against the decisions are simply false and should be disregarded.
AP1 (Applicant): So should be the government's submissions on the applicant's criminal complaints, which were registered separately than the general file on the events and dismissed in 2004.
AP1 (Applicant): They have been part of a different application to the European Court of Human Rights, which was not pursued by the applicant and are not referred to in the present case.
AP1 (Applicant): In spite of these facts, the chamber held that there was no violation of Article III under its procedural limb due to the applicant's inactivity for more than 11 years.
AP1 (Applicant): Severing the applicant's case from the context of the June 1990 events, contrary to the approach of the domestic authorities, or the serious nature of the human rights violation of June 1990 as whole and the effect they had on the applicant, have to be taken into consideration when assessing his behavior.
AP1 (Applicant): Starting 14 June 1990, he was in hiding for three months, although he did not commit any crime during the events.
AP1 (Applicant): His mental and physical state of health deteriorated and could not have been possibly expected to complain to the prosecution, an institution that made the very step, the very first step to unfold the authorities' plan, plans for 13-15 June 1990 and later did nothing to effectively investigate.
AP1 (Applicant): The prosecutors in charge of the investigation were part of the military, just as the state agents abusing his rights.
AP1 (Applicant): In such a state of fear and distrust, only the authorities' vigorous and immediate decision to investigate, to identify and actively involve the victims in the investigation, could have determined the applicant to act.
AP1 (Applicant): Soon after the authorities made the very first steps, even incomplete, for observing their duty to investigate, the applicant became very actively involved in the procedure.
AP1 (Applicant): The year that passed between the indictment decision of 18 May 2000 and his complaint is a reasonable period of time, especially given the fact that he was not expected to find out about the decision immediately, his lack of legal background, and his vulnerability due to his state of mental and physical health.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, according to the court's jurisprudence set forth in the Judgment Association, 21st December 1989 and others versus Romania of 24 May 2011, investigations into mass violations of human rights cannot be terminated on grounds of prescription due to the higher right of the society at large to know the truth into such serious events and to avoid the culprit's impunity.
AP1 (Applicant): A logical and consistent approach, application of such principle, which implies a continuation of criminal investigations until truth is established and culprits are held liable for their behavior, also means that the victims, the applicant included, are not required to lodge a complaint on the abuse they were subjected to as long as the State could have become aware of the violations of their rights by effectively investigating the events as whole as ex officio.
AP1 (Applicant): In this context, the moment a victim do complain of his rights being violated should not bear on the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigations.
AP1 (Applicant): On the contrary, where a victim choose to complain, provided he does so while the investigations are still open as the cases in this situation, can only be regarded as a form of help to the authorities' calls to investigate.
AP1 (Applicant): As regards the authorities' obligation to conduct an effective and immediate investigation ex officio, the applicant points out that under the domestic law, most of the deeds perpetrated during the events were incriminated at the material time with the exception of torture and did not require a preliminary complaint for investigations to be started.
AP1 (Applicant): Also, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights ratified by Romania in 1974 provided in article – provides in Article 2, paragraph 3, for effective remedies, including judicial, in cases of violations of human rights covered by the convent, including those applicable in the present case.
AP1 (Applicant): The obligation to investigate ex officio was stronger, taking into consideration that the events of June 1990 have not been – have not been ordinary instances of illegal use of force by the law enforcement officials.
AP1 (Applicant): They bear a special significance in the recent history of Romania in the context of the transition to a democratic society, have affected a large number of individuals, and triggered consequences in respect of Romania's international relations.
AP1 (Applicant): The criminal investigation was the only mean for the Romanian society to find the truth on important events in its recent history, and in this context, civil claims for damages filed by the victims with the domestic authorities are insufficient in establishing the truth on the events, and therefore should not be considered as effective remedies to be exhausted as the government claims.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, the prospect of success of such claims is purely a speculation.
AP1 (Applicant): In the applicant's particular case, and under the circumstances in which he was a victim of specific crimes on the night of 13 to 14 June 1990, ex officio investigation could have been easily carried out, as the material evidence in his respect was archived by the relevant public institutions known to have been locations for the events.
AP1 (Applicant): Consequently, the applicant submits that even before 2001, the investigations, if effective and thorough, should have covered his particular case as well, even in the absence of a formal complaint on his part.
AP1 (Applicant): The Court should analyze the effectiveness of the investigations starting 20 June 1994, when Romania ratified the European Convention, and not only after 2001.
AP1 (Applicant): The need to look into the events as a whole is also important to explain the consequent and consistent failure to investigate by the prosecution, and to assess the authorities' diligence in investigating in conjunction with the principles set forth by the Court for important issues for a particular society, as in Association 21 December 1989 and others versus Romania.
AP1 (Applicant): The events of June 1990 were part of a larger movement that started in December 1989.
AP1 (Applicant): One of the main features of that transitional period was a depolarization of society, with open conflicts between various social classes, political, or even ethnic groups.
AP1 (Applicant): In several occasions, different than the one that's been described.
AP1 (Applicant): We're here today providing or partially covering
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Sorry, may I interrupt you?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Would it be possible to speak a little bit slower for the purposes of the translation, of the interpretation?
AP1 (Applicant): Sure, no problem.
AP1 (Applicant): In several occasions different than the one at stake in the present case, the conflict resulted in violence, such in January 1990 in Bucharest, March 1990 in Tg. Mureš,
AP1 (Applicant): or again September 1991 in Bucharest. The authorities and the political leaders
AP1 (Applicant): have constantly failed to play a neutral role or to accommodate the various social interests at stake. On the contrary, they openly fueled the divisions in the society and the fears
AP1 (Applicant): and distrust accompanying social transition and instability. The domestic investigation