TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): Our submissions are that the Weber criteria and the Zakharov 251 or 230, those paragraphs, apply to both regimes, and we don't say that those requirements do not apply to the regimes, save only in two limited respects.
GR1 (Government): One in relation to RCD, in other words the communications data part of it, but we say it doesn't, the Weber criteria don't apply directly, but even if they do, they're satisfied, and secondly in relation to intelligence sharing, which is a wholly different context.
GR1 (Government): But subject to those two points, we respectfully accept that the Weber criteria apply to the regime.
GR1 (Government): How are they different, to go back to bulk versus targeted, well they are principally different in the respect I've already identified, namely they are different in nature, because you are doing fundamentally different things.
GR1 (Government): You are, to go back to the description in the Intelligence and Security Committee's 2015 report, you are using the bulk surveillance or the bulk data regime in order to try to identify threats so as to enable you better to target those who genuinely pose a threat, but they're doing fundamentally different, both thoroughly important, but fundamentally different things, and the safeguards are tailored accordingly.
GR1 (Government): All of the safeguards that I described have been carefully thought about by the United Kingdom legislature, and they have set up a suite of safeguards that are, I respectfully submit, properly focused on the particular nature of the power and the particular nature of the regime to which those safeguards apply.
GR1 (Government): Judge Pinto to Albuquerque's questions, and finally, the two, three, four, and possibly even five, but the second of his questions related to the 2016 Act and the introduction in that Act of judicial authorisation.
GR1 (Government): Any reason, as he put it, not to trust the Secretary of State?
GR1 (Government): None is my answer to that, and it should not be taken, and cannot be taken, we submit, particularly having regard to the court's consistent case law on prior judicial authorisation.
GR1 (Government): It should not be taken that the legislative choice has been to up the safeguards, that the previous safeguards were inadequate—they are not, for the reasons that I have given.
GR1 (Government): The third of Judge Pinto to Albuquerque's questions related to the Commissioner, and asked about the manner and nature of his appointment, who provides the staff, is he part-time, as it was put rather pejoratively.
GR1 (Government): Our answer to that, yes, he is appointed by the Prime Minister, but the relevant legislation, that is RIPA, in section 57, sub 5, requires in terms that the person who is appointed should be, or should have been, a member of the independent senior judiciary.
GR1 (Government): It then also provides for staff to work to him, and for the provision under sub 7 of section 57 of sufficient resources to do his job.
GR1 (Government): All of the commissioners in the relevant period we are considering have been retired Court of Appeal judges—so extremely senior judges who have retired, so they have the time available to devote to this.
GR1 (Government): It is a matter for them to organise their office, to organise their staff, and when inspections are carried out they are done by staff and or by the Commissioner, but the staff report to the Commissioner, they can devote the time to it that they consider appropriate.
GR1 (Government): It might be thought that the prime safeguard in having a Commissioner there is that he can go in at any stage to any of the agencies and say, right, show me that, show me the justification for doing that particular randomly selected interrogation of the system or search, or why did you produce that particular selector.
GR1 (Government): So it is that that provides the safeguarding, and we respectfully submit that there is no inadequacy in any of that.
GR1 (Government): This is an independent person, of course funded by government—where else is the funding going to come from?—appointed by the Prime Minister, but if the suggestion is that that
GR1 (Government): interferes with his independence, we respectfully disagree.
GR1 (Government): If you want an indication of just how carefully this process works and the intensity of the scrutiny that they used to bring to bear, I would refer you in particular to tabs 35 and especially 36 and 37 of your call bundle, which contains for, I think, the years 2014 to 16, the reports of the Commissioners on the system, and that gives you at least a flavour of the intensity which they bring to bear in terms of their oversight.
GR1 (Government): Intelligence sharing and legal obligation to check, in effect, equivalent standards of the system.
GR1 (Government): That was the fourth question.
GR1 (Government): I am going to do a going out and a coming in thing, if I may, in relation to that, in answer to that.
GR1 (Government): Going out from the UK to a third party, see sections 15.2 and section 15.7 of RIPA, which
GR1 (Government): includes a requirement for there to be corresponding safeguards in the recipient state, third party state, and for things coming in, can I refer you to chapter 12 of the Code, and in particular paragraph 12.6 of the Code, behind tab 33, and the phrase used there is same safeguards.
GR1 (Government): You will bear in mind in relation to all of this area, this Court's and the Commission's consistent jurisprudence that it isn't for this Court, as it were, to impose ECHR standards on third party states.
GR1 (Government): I have in mind cases such as the Bertrand Russell Foundation against the United Kingdom all those years ago, but the theme is constant.
GR1 (Government): The fifth of the questions asked by Judge Finto de Albuquerque are asked about the possibility of a confidential message being sent by this Court to a lawyer in London.
GR1 (Government): Could it be caught and examined by the British Intelligence Service was the question.
GR1 (Government): The answer to that is, first, it might be caught because bulk interception is bulk interception, so one would not know whether it had been picked up as part of the interception of a particular bearer.
GR1 (Government): So it's possible that it would be caught by that part of it.
GR1 (Government): It could then only continue to exist capable of being examined if it passed the selection criteria, the imposition of those selectors narrowing it down, and it wouldn't pass that, I respectfully submit.
GR1 (Government): And in any event, if it got there and it was examined, the LPP safeguards in the code at paragraph 4.5 and following would apply to it.
GR1 (Government): And the bull point at both of those latter two stages is that that sort of message would not on any view fall within terrorism or serious crime or economic well-being of the United Kingdom related to national security, and it simply would not meet the conditions that are specified in the primary legislation.
GR1 (Government): My learned friend's reliance on the Belhage case is entirely inapposite in this context.
GR1 (Government): The problem in the Belhage case was that there was a particular problem or couple of problems with the precise manner in which LPP was described in the MI5 handling arrangements, and as a result of that, the concession was made.
GR1 (Government): Our Belhage cannot be taken, as it were, as my learned friend sought to imply, as some form of indication that the government or the intelligence services routinely, still less lawfully, could intercept the sort of message that Judge Pinto de Albuquerque's fifth question put up.
GR1 (Government): So those are the answers to the questions.
GR1 (Government): Very, very briefly, if I may, Mr. Jaffe's fundamental argument on safeguards was that
GR1 (Government): our case, he said, comes to a simple proposition, which is trust us.
GR1 (Government): And as you've heard in the answers to the court's questions and in the speech I made earlier on, that, we respectfully submit, is simply wrong.
GR1 (Government): You have a detailed suite of safeguards contained in the primary legislation with the detail and the code.
GR1 (Government): You've got all of the oversight mechanisms I identified.
GR1 (Government): You've got particular focus on the safeguards that apply at the stage where the interference is likely to be at its most serious, namely the selection and examination stage.
GR1 (Government): And you've also got all of that suite of safeguards applying to communications data as well as content.
GR1 (Government): And for all of those reasons, we do submit that this court should find no breach of Article 8 and no breach of Article 10.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Thank you. We have now come to the end of the hearing.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): I thank the parties for their submissions and answers to the court's questions.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): The court will now deliberate on the merits.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): The judgment will be delivered later.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): The parties will be informed of the date of delivery.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): I declare the hearing closed.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Marguš against Croatia.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The case was lodged on the 31st of December, 2009, with the court under Article 34 of the Convention by a Croatian national, Mr. Fred Marguš.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the first section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, paragraph 1 of the rules of the court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): It was communicated to the government on the 5th of September, 2011.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 13th of November, 2012, a chamber of that section declared the application partly admissible and delivered a judgment in which it tells that neither Article 6 nor Article 4 of Protocol Number 7 to the Convention had been violated.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 27th of December, 2012, the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The Grand Chamber panel granted the request on the 18th of March, 2013.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 16th of May, 2013, Middlesex University London was granted leave under Rule 44, paragraph 3 of the rules of the court to make written submissions at the third party.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Mrs. Štefica
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Stažnik, assisted by Mrs. Nikolina Katić and Mrs.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Jasmina Dolmagić advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Petar Sabolić, counsel.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I also welcome a group of French judges, a group of high counsel judges and prosecutors of Turkey, a delegation from the Constitutional Court of Montenegro, a delegation from the Albanian Supreme Court, and the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Sabolić for the applicant will speak first
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and then Mrs. Stažnik for the government.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting from and into Croatia has been authorized for the benefit of the applicant's representative.
Dean Spielmann (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.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Furthermore, interpreting in Montenegrin has been authorized for the benefit of a delegation from the Constitutional Court of Montenegro.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): That interpreting is not arranged by the court, and no transcription of the oral translation will be included in the official record of the proceedings either.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Mr. Sabolić.
AP1 (Applicant): Poštovani predsjedniče, poštovani gospode suci, srdačno vas pozdravljam.
AP1 (Applicant): Ja sam odetnik Sabolić Petar iz Osijeka.
AP1 (Applicant): Moj branjenik Fred Marguš suđen je bez dokaza i uz kruptne proceduralne pogreške.
AP1 (Applicant): Već na samom početku kazenog postupka on je izložen ogromnom publicitetu gdje je bio zapravo unaprijed suđen jer je cijelokumna štampa, odnosno svi mediji, su bili naklonljeni organijima gonjenja.
AP1 (Applicant): U takvoj situaciji stvorjene u javnosti je jedan autoritet, jedno mišljenje koje možemo izznačiti sa autoritarnom etikom koja je bila u protivnosti sa humaničkom etikom.
AP1 (Applicant): I u takvom ozračju je vođen taj postupak.
AP1 (Applicant): Ja sam sve iz toga pročitao od Elija Hroma u knjizi Čovjek za sebe i u tome, koje je među ostalog rekao, parafraziram, da kada se stvori takvano javno mišljenje, kada se stvori autoritet u javnosti i autoritarna etika, da tada ona druga strana koja bi trebala uživati humaničku etiku ima veoma male šanse.
AP1 (Applicant): Jer gleda se prije svega da se podilazi toj autoritarnoj etici u javnosti, a svaki onaj koji misli drugačije izlaže se o opasnosti da doživi javni prekor i da ga čak proglase nesposobno.
AP1 (Applicant): Radi toga postupak nije vođen u sladu sa proceduralnim rješenjima Hrvatskog zaklona na okazanom postupku, a nije imeo nije u skladu sa Ustavom Republike Hrvatske, gdje stoji da postoji presumcija nedužnosti, a taj postulat je izokrenut, tako da je važio postulat, odnosno princip ili pravilo, kriv si dok ne dokažeš protivno.
AP1 (Applicant): A kada smo pokušavali dokazati protivno, svi su redom dokazi bili odbijeni.
AP1 (Applicant): Vidi se čak i iz prvostupanjske presude da ta presuda nije obrazložena afirmativno, već da je sud odmah počeo sa obrazloženjem zašto nije prihvatio dokaze obrane.
AP1 (Applicant): To je kao da se nastavlja na onaj princip kriv si dok se ne dokaže protivno.
AP1 (Applicant): Zadatak je suda bio da afirmativno dokaže na temelju kojih izvora spoznaje, je došao do zaključka da postoje činjenice koje su navedene u toj presudi.
AP1 (Applicant): Pored toga, upotrebnjen je kao dokazno sredstvo svjedok Olev, koji je imao faktički status zaštićenog svjedoka, ali formalno ne, jer da je formalno imao takav status, on ne bi imao tu dokaznu snagu i dokaznu vrednost koju je imao sa tim neformalnim statusom.
AP1 (Applicant): Tako da se presuda mogla osloniti samo na njega, iako u članu 238e ZKPA piše da takav usamljeni svjedok nije dovoljan da bi afirmirao presudu, i da takav usamljeni svjedok mora imati još nekog pridruženog svjedoka ili dokaz, jer je dokazna snaga takvog svjedoka subsidijarne i ograničene vrednosti.
AP1 (Applicant): Nije uslovjeni posljedni, kao najjači dokaz, rekonstrukcije događaja, jer taj svjedok nije mogao ponoviti niti opisati gdje se to u geograskom, vegetarskom smislu zlo događalo.
AP1 (Applicant): On je pokazao ono što je bilo na istoku, pokazuje na jugu, a ono što je bilo na jugu pokazuje na istoku, i u tijeku cijelog postupka je mijenjao iskaz i nije bio u stanju da ponovi na kraju rasprave ono što je rekao ranije, a kada sam ja stavljao prigovore, on je rekao da on duševni bolestnik, da se on liječi, i da on zapravo ne može više reproducirati ono što je ranije rekao.
AP1 (Applicant): Ja smatram da takav svjedok ne bi smio biti izvor spoznaje niti za osudjuću, a niti za oslobađuću presudu.
AP1 (Applicant): To je što se tiče ove prve točke, da moj branjanjnik nije imao onaj status, onaj položaj u zakonu o kaznovnom postupku, koji jamči da nitko ne duže ne bude proglašen krivim ili strože nego što zabređuje, a da se ipak i postavljuje društvenim ciljim da se pravo krivca ne mimođe.
AP1 (Applicant): Što se tiče prigovora ne bis in idem, tu se od strane vlade apostrofira i stavlja u prvi plan zakon o oprostu, iako je to samo jedan od razloga za obustavu kaznovnog postupka.
AP1 (Applicant): Po mojem mišljenju, bitno je da je kaznenji postupak pravomoćno obustavljen na temelju rješenja.
AP1 (Applicant): U članu 11 stavila ZKP-a u to vrijeme rješenje i svaka presuda bili su izjednačeni.
AP1 (Applicant): Zato se kaže da je to presudjena stvar.
AP1 (Applicant): Vrhovni sud Hrvatske i državni odvjetnik tako smatraju u prvom dijelu postupanja.
AP1 (Applicant): Državni odvjetnik je znao da je to smetnja za dalje vođenje postupka, pa je postavio zahtjev za zaštitu zakonitosti.
AP1 (Applicant): Vrhovni sud na to odgovara.
AP1 (Applicant): Ni pogodom zahtjeva za zaštitu zakonitosti.
AP1 (Applicant): Možemo samo da konstatiramo da se opovređena pravila zakona kad onom postupkom, ali nas pravomoćnost veže i mi ne možemo mijenjati tu odruku.
AP1 (Applicant): Pa radi toga da je sljedeće obrazljevanje, dozvolite da pročinem samo taj dio da vas ne obzarećujem, u presudi KZZ 2.0 kroz 0.5 povlaka 6 od 19. runa 2007.
AP1 (Applicant): Na kraju obrazljevanje glasi.
AP1 (Applicant): Budući da je zahtjev za zaštiju zakonitosti podignut na štetu obtuđenika, trebalo je na temelju odebe člana 409.2 Zakona o krivičnom postupku
AP1 (Applicant): utvrditi samo da postoji opisana povrda zakona ne dirajući u pravomoćnu odruku.
AP1 (Applicant): Prema tome, vrhovni sud je s time jasno dao do znanja da respektira pravomoćnu odruku, da je oslovnac, da je sigurnost i da se ne može mijenjati niti ukidati već samo u zakonnom postupku.
AP1 (Applicant): Tu se između redaka sugerira da se to može učiniti samo u obnovi postupka pod članom 401. i 422. Zakona o krivičnom postupku
AP1 (Applicant): i pod članom 413. Zakona o krivičnom postupku.
AP1 (Applicant): Međutim, taj postupak do današnjega nije pokrevno.
AP1 (Applicant): Prema tome, mi i dan danas imamo dvije pravomoćne odluke, jedna koja glasi obustava kaznovnog postupka, koja je postala pravomoćna.
AP1 (Applicant): Ona je samo u jednom dijelu malo dodirnuta povodom zahte od zahtje o zakonitosti.
AP1 (Applicant): I imamo ovu presudu gdje je diametralno oprečno moj brajnik proglašen krivim i kaznjen čak sa 15 godina zatvora.
AP1 (Applicant): Ja smatram da u uređenoj pravnoj državi, u vladavini prava, takav dualizam ne bi smio koegistirati.
AP1 (Applicant): Nadalje smatram da nije bitno kako je primjenjen zakon u oprostu.
AP1 (Applicant): Nije bitna kvaliteta primjenja tog zakona, jer pravomoćnost pokriva i najveće pogreške u primjenju toga zakona.
AP1 (Applicant): Tako dugo dok se pravomoćna odluka ne izmieni, vrijedi ono što piše u pravomoćnoj odluci po pravilima res judicata pro veritate habetur, res judicata facit just inter partes.
AP1 (Applicant): Međutim, toga se sud u kasnijoj fazi postupka, kada je vođen protiv Ferida Marguša u drugom dijelu, dobio 15 godina zatvora, više se nikom nije pridržavao.
AP1 (Applicant): Čak se je dogodilo to da je isti sudac, koji je bio predsednik vijeća, koji je pravomoćno obustavilo postupak protiv njega, da taj isti sudac udjeluje i u ovom vijeću, koje je dodijelilo 14, a kasnije 15 godina zatvora.
AP1 (Applicant): Mi smatramo da taj sudac nije smio se udjelovati u ovom drugom sastavu.
AP1 (Applicant): Meni je to najbolnije pitanje u mojoj pravim karijeri, da ja moram govoriti da taj sudac to nije smio uraditi, jer je to veoma čestit i pošten sudac, ja ga visoko cijenim, ali ja sam dao prednost općem dobru nad privatnim dobrom i smatram da moram na to ukazati da je u tovo vrijeme došlo do naglog zaokreta u Hrvatskoj i da su rani oprosti koji su dijeljeni, tako reći, šaklom i kapom, oni su došli do restrikcije te primjene i to je bilo svima jasno i on je osjećao da je to njegova pogreška što je u prvom setu, u prvom dijelu dodijelio pravomoćnu odluku na obustavu postupka i nastoje da to korigira i sanira u ovom drugom dijelu, pa je težio da donese osuđuću presudu i da na taj način rehabilitira sam sebe i ovaj stav koji je izrazio ranije gdje je dodijelio oprosti.
AP1 (Applicant): Ja zato smatram da je on imao osobne razloge da donese osuđuću presudu, jer što stroža presuda, to jači kurgativ, to jača čistoća, u pogledu njegove ličnosti jer se onda izbavio od one pogreške koje je ranije učinio.
AP1 (Applicant): Većina pravnika i oni koji čak i ne razumiju pravu su smatrali da se zakon o općem oprostu preširoko primjenjuje.
AP1 (Applicant): Ja se zato izvinjavam profesorima iz Londona koje visoko cijenim što se oni uključili ovdje i žele pomoći.
AP1 (Applicant): Međutim, u Hrvatskoj je već taj stav dominirao ranije 2006. godine,
AP1 (Applicant): a ovega suda se nije primjenio nego je primjenio taj stari stav i on je podijelio oprosti.
AP1 (Applicant): Nadalje, važno je što će biti sljedeće pitanje, da je moj branjenik u zadnjoj fazi postupka došao u situaciju pošto je teški šećeni bolesnik.
AP1 (Applicant): Da je bio gotovo u agoni, pa je zbog obamerlosti i dok umora hvatao zrak, a suda se to shvatio kao da je on pravi neret.
AP1 (Applicant): Nikakve psovke on nije uključio, ništa on nije ga lamio, on ništa vulgarno nije rekao.
AP1 (Applicant): On je samo pokazivao da je na početku rasprave bio osposobljen za praćenje rasprave, a da je nakon 3,5 sata, 4 sata njemu ta raspravna sposobnost nestala.
AP1 (Applicant): A sljedeći kao više nije bilo tu da to, uzimajući anamnezu i druge indikatore, verificira kao bolesno stanje, a ne kao stanje nekakve devijacije i bilo kakve delikvencije.
AP1 (Applicant): S obzirom da mojem radnjeniku nije omogućena završna riječ, svi oni koji poznaju zakon, koji se bave pravosuđem, a čak i lajici, ne mogu to shvatiti, jer svi znaju da se završna riječ mora dati svakom okrivljeniku.
AP1 (Applicant): Ja sam bio isto sudac Okružnog suda u Osijeku i općinskog, pa znam da nam se znalo omaknuti da smo napravili grešku pa slučajno nije završna riječ imao okrivljenik.
AP1 (Applicant): Znamo da je svaka pala nije došla do prvog kata gdje se nalazi Okružnog suda.
AP1 (Applicant): Ja kao njegov branjenik nisam imao pravo samo u tom dijelu, po mojoj mišljenju, da nastupam mjesto njega.
AP1 (Applicant): Jer dok sam bio sudac Okružnog suda, jer sam bio prvostupanjski krivični sudac, da su okrivljene osobe u zadnjem momentu doživjele katarzu, da su tražile oprost, da su tražile čak i priznanje, da su doživjele gotovo duševni preobražaj kao da odlaze na onaj svijet.
AP1 (Applicant): Kada smo mi vidjeli da to nije gluma i da je to zaista iskreno kajanje, iskreno priznanje, mi smo davali gotovo u pola manje kazne odnosno na one koji nisu dali takvo priznanje i koji nisu doživjeli takvo duševno preobrađanje.
AP1 (Applicant): Da je moj branjenik bio u sudnici, ja ne znam šta se dešava u njegoj duši.
AP1 (Applicant): On bi možda po nekom dijelu priznao ili bi možda sve priznao, ja ne znam ako je počinio, ili bi možda, ako ništa drugo, izrazio kajanje i tražio oprost i to bi i tekako imalo značaja u individualizaciji kazne, odnosno u odmjeravanju kazne.
AP1 (Applicant): S obzirom na sve te momente, ja smatram da moj branjenik nije pravilo suđen i da je došlo do krupnih pogrešaka koje se ne bi smjele dešavati jer mi sad imamo konvenciju koju prije nismo imali.
AP1 (Applicant): Ta konvencija se svača u Hrvatskoj kao novo ustavno pravo, a ovaj sud se doživljava kao ustavni sud.
AP1 (Applicant): Ima čak i takvih mišljene i stavova da je konvencija poput Biblije, spominje se i visoka predstavnica Ujedinjenja naroda, MR, koja je rekla u ljudskim srcima su temeljna prava i slobode bila davno prije zapisana, nego je bilo koji pravnik počeo pisati zakone.
AP1 (Applicant): Ja smatram da je isto tako konvencija poput Biblije koja daje nadu i ufanje i ohrabrenje svima onima koji su obespravljeni.
AP1 (Applicant): Da je im nadu već na samom početku da ne moraju razmišljati da neće uspjeti u kazenom postupku, već da je nada ta koja posljedno umire.
AP1 (Applicant): Radi toga molim i predlažem da se mojemu branjeniku omogući da u pravednoj i poštojnoj proceduri 6.14.15.17. konvencije
AP1 (Applicant): mogući da pravda bude zakonita, istinita, a ujedno i pouzdana jer rušenje pravomoćnosti to je rušenje pravne sigurnosti i nitko više ne može znati na čemu je.
AP1 (Applicant): Kako se ne rekao u Starom Rimu, ako se ne radi po zakonu ništa nije sigurno. Radi toga molim da se u obnovi postupka to popravi i da moj branjenik koji je nedužan bude oslobođen od obtužbe.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you Mr. Sabolić.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I Would you like to call Mrs. Stažnik, please
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Yes, of course.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President of the Grand Chamber of the Court,