TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): And sometimes, even if it's not a state secret, other secrets, which can be professional secrets, which can be a religious secret, may obviously seal certain information and not allow this information to be used in the trial, as long as we know, according to this Court's law, that the problems of inadmissibility of the overall outcome of the trial does not cause an insurmountable substantial disadvantage to the applicants to such an extent that the very essence of the right be impaired.
GR1 (Government): Well, this has not happened in this case, as 26 people were convicted and amounts were liquidated in favor of the applicants.
GR1 (Government): As for the dialectic that has been present in the judicial history, it is normal that, obviously, within the domestic proceedings, there may be a dialectic between courts, national courts.
GR1 (Government): This has been the case.
GR1 (Government): However, it is totally normal that, in case of overruling of a lower court's decision, there may be considerations that are, obviously, formulated by the lower judge, in this case, the court of cassation.
GR1 (Government): As for the extraditions, the government would like to highlight that extradition requests were not issued during the investigation because of the delicate nature of the investigation and also because, as we have heard, it is a very time-demanding procedure.
GR1 (Government): And it was important to see how the domestic judicial proceeding would have ended up.
GR1 (Government): Whereas, contrary to what has been affirmed by the applicants, once the conviction decisions had become final, the European arrest warrants, which are mandatory surrender procedures, had been issued by the judicial authorities.
GR1 (Government): Whereas, as we heard, the extradition procedure outside of the territories has obeyed to political discretional criteria of the Minister of Justice, according to the regulation that my colleague Giannuzzi has cited, which is a regulation that dates back to the year 2000, thus way before this case, and which, as said, actually makes it more transparent, makes this extradition procedure more transparent and certain and not so discretional.
GR1 (Government): Because all those cases in which the penalty is higher than four years are obviously, the extradition procedure is worth initiating.
GR1 (Government): Whereas, for all those cases in which the penalty is below the four years, the time consuming and the efforts to have an extradition procedure with the suffering of detention for extradition purposes may vanify, once the person is surrendered, may vanify the extradition, the surrender of the person, and obviously, the final outcome of this proceedings.
GR1 (Government): So the regulation that the state has posed, the regulation of the year 2000, actually guarantees a fairness of this, of the way that political discretion on extradition is exercised.
GR1 (Government): One last brief comment.
GR1 (Government): There should be no question on the constitutional court's decision and on the way how the state secret has been exercised in the present case.
GR1 (Government): There has been a political check on the state secret by a special parliamentary commission, which unanimously found the state secret as lawful, as well as two decisions of the constitutional court that affirm the lawfulness of the state secret applied.
GR1 (Government): This court, the constitutional court, as you all know, is an independent court, the highest in the national system.
GR1 (Government): It is independent both from the executive, from the legislature, and from the judicial normal courts, the ordinary judicial.
GR1 (Government): It is the court that is entitled to the protection of the fundamental rights and to perform a fair balance among conflicting interests.
GR1 (Government): Mr. Giannuzzi will proceed.
GR2 (Government): Yes, I would like to briefly reply to some objections of the counterpart about the alleged retroactive nature of the opposition of the state secret.
GR2 (Government): I think that these objections can be overcome by a careful examination of the one of the two sentences, the two judgments of constitutional court we have mentioned.
GR2 (Government): The judgment number 106-2009 is clearly pointed out that in this case, there has not been a retroactive opposition of the state secret because the fact that the information document and acts which are related to the relationships between Italian secret service and foreign secret service were considered to be under the scope of the state secret even before, before since the year 1985.
GR2 (Government): There was a note of the president of the council of ministers of the time that sealed with state secrecy the information, the record, the documents related to the relationships between the Italian foreign, Italian secret service and foreign secret services agency.
GR2 (Government): It is a clear point explained, very, very clear explained by the constitutional court.
GR2 (Government): As far as the alleged publicity of these, of the information covered with the state secret, it's also, it's also being explained by the constitutional court that the massive circulation of news was not prior to the opposition of the state secret, but was due to the proceedings itself.
GR2 (Government): And so it cannot be in in equitable to the, to the government, which has also stated, that's also affirmed and confirmed the decision taken by president governments.
Päivi Hirvelä (JudgeP): I thank the representatives of the government.
Päivi Hirvelä (JudgeP): I call Mr. Bauccio.
AP1 (Applicant): Onorevoli giudici, poche parole per ribattere a quanto sostenuto dal Governo italiano.
AP1 (Applicant): Anzitutto rispondo all'equisito posto dall'Onorevole giudice Raimondi.
AP1 (Applicant): L'azione civile in Italia è pregiudicata per sempre.
AP1 (Applicant): I ricorrenti non potranno mai più agire in Italia.
AP1 (Applicant): Dove agissero nei confronti degli agenti del Servizio segreto italiano imputati nel procedimento, quella azione troverebbe lo stesso esito del processo penale.
AP1 (Applicant): Quanto invece all'azione nei confronti degli imputati condannati agenti della CIA, questa azione andrebbe svolta negli Stati Uniti.
AP1 (Applicant): Ma gli Stati Uniti hanno sempre eccepito, anche durante il processo, che l'azione dei suoi agenti era un'azione coperta dal segreto di Stato.
AP1 (Applicant): La possibilità concreta per i ricorrenti di avere un esito favorevole, ma anche di poter introdurre l'azione civile negli Stati Uniti, è pari a zero.
AP1 (Applicant): Devo aggiungere che dal punto di vista del risarcimento, il Governo italiano non ha mai nemmeno provato la strada del risarcimento nei confronti delle parti civili, le quali non hanno mai ricevuto alcuna offerta.
AP1 (Applicant): Le parti civili e i ricorrenti odierni non hanno mai anticipatamente subordinato questa possibilità a termini e condizioni.
AP1 (Applicant): Il Governo italiano, alla stregua del Governo canadese, ma devo dire alla stregua di qualunque Governo responsabile, non ha mai pensato di comporre il conflitto, la lesione di un diritto fondamentale subito da due persone residenti in Italia con un'offerta di qualunque valore.
AP1 (Applicant): Il Governo italiano si stupisce del fatto che i ricorrenti si accaniscano nei confronti di alcuni imputati.
AP1 (Applicant): Siamo noi stupiti, perché noi siamo qui perché non vogliamo rinunciare ad un'idea di giustizia piena.
AP1 (Applicant): Vogliamo conoscere, volevamo conoscere i nomi e i cognomi di coloro che hanno provocato, consentito l'esito tragico di questo sequestro di persone.
AP1 (Applicant): Una rendition che, forse, se avesse trovato un muro invalicabile nelle nostre autorità non sarebbe mai accaduta.
AP1 (Applicant): Ma non occorre nemmeno addentrarsi nello spiegare vicende e fatti che, purtroppo, per responsabilità del Governo italiano, non possono essere predicati in termini di certezza.
AP1 (Applicant): La responsabilità del Governo italiano è tutta in queste conseguenze.
AP1 (Applicant): Aver neutralizzato con il suo comportamento la possibilità di rendere cogente, effettiva, la tutela di cui è l'articolo 3 della Convenzione, di cui è l'articolo 5 e 6 della Convenzione e 13 della Convenzione.
AP1 (Applicant): E questa è la responsabilità del Governo italiano.
AP1 (Applicant): Noi siamo qui perché ci riteniamo privati di un diritto alla giustizia, di un diritto alla verità e anche un diritto alle conseguenze del proclamare giustizia, che si risolvono anche nel risarcimento del danno, che è per fizio, ma anche per necessità civile e democratica, il momento di composizione tra il cittadino e lo Stato.
AP1 (Applicant): Se lo Stato rinuncia a questa funzione, ma addirittura se lo Stato impedisce questa funzione, lo Stato cessa di essere a servizio dello Stato.
AP1 (Applicant): La casa sequestrata all'agente americano Seldon Lady. Abbiamo documentato, ed è un
AP1 (Applicant): fatto pacifico e notorio, che quella casa era per metà di proprietà della moglie di Seldon Lady e solo per metà di proprietà di Seldon Lady. L'intero ricavato della vendita
AP1 (Applicant): forzata di questa metà è andata a coprire il mutuo che aveva un privilegio e quindi un diritto di precedenza su tutti gli altri creditori, perché la casa non era mai stata pagata. L'argomento usato dal Governo ancora oggi è davvero incomprensibile.
AP1 (Applicant): Afferma il Governo che il segreto di Stato non avrebbe agito retroattivamente. Sono contento
AP1 (Applicant): che il Governo abbia accolto la mia provocazione. È vero, onorevoli giudici, non agisce retroattivamente.
AP1 (Applicant): Ha agito retroattivamente negli effetti, perché ha impedito dopo ciò che non poteva più essere impedito. Ha reso per fizio, per finzione, segreto ciò che era pubblico. Ma è vero
AP1 (Applicant): che non può ontologicamente, nella sua essenza, agire retroattivamente. Sono d'accordo con
AP1 (Applicant): loro. Ma è proprio questo che fa esplodere la contraddizione e lo scandalo di una reiterazione
AP1 (Applicant): del segreto di Stato nei confronti di un materiale probatorio che non era stato segretato, che è stato acquisito e che è stato utilizzato dalle istituzioni italiane, dalla Procura di Milano che ha condotto un'indagine encomiabile, dai giudici che hanno avuto tra le mani quei documenti, dagli avvocati, dalle parti, dai giornalisti che hanno assistito a tutte le udienze del dibattimento senza che mai il Governo o gli imputati chiedessero che quelle udienze venissero celebrate a porte chiuse. Mai un comportamento che denotasse una reale
AP1 (Applicant): volontà di segretare quei documenti. Il segreto di Stato non può agire, aggiungo, non può,
AP1 (Applicant): non deve agire retroattivamente. Ciò che è pubblico rimane pubblico.
AP1 (Applicant): Quindi la pubblicità va valutata come un dato di fatto. La pubblicità del materiale
AP1 (Applicant): probatorio è un dato di fatto che non può essere cancellato da una semplice formula giuridica, da una semplice formula politica.
AP1 (Applicant): In ultimo, il Governo dice che la richiesta di estradizione è un atto politico, è un atto discrezionale. È il Governo che valuta, in determinati casi, l'opportunità di chiedere
AP1 (Applicant): l'estradizione. Ancora una volta, questa affermazione rende manifesta la posizione
AP1 (Applicant): ingiustificabile ed in manifesto conflitto con la Convenzione. Una facoltà non è arbitrio
AP1 (Applicant): in uno Stato di diritto. La possibilità o il margine, lo spazio di valutazione politica
AP1 (Applicant): non vuol dire arbitrio, non vuol dire un'opzione individuale, fuori da uno schema di legalità, di giustizia, di coerenza con i principi costituzionali e della Convenzione. Se non è in un Paese
AP1 (Applicant): democratico obbligatorio chiedere l'estradizione nei confronti di chi ha realizzato un terribile sequestro, che cosa dobbiamo attenderci per ritenere quell'articolo 3 violato, offeso, sfregiato? È su questo che noi vi abbiamo chiesto di intervenire e di dare la vostra
AP1 (Applicant): valutazione. Non può la facoltà trasformarsi in arbitrio, non può una valutazione discrezionale
AP1 (Applicant): essere un manto calcolato, essere un mantello studiato per proteggere singole persone, per motivi inconfessati, per motivi che non possiamo conoscere. Ma la non conoscenza di questi
AP1 (Applicant): motivi non può imporci che noi tutti si chiuda gli occhi sulla realtà, si chiuda gli occhi sulla verità, sulla esigenza di giustizia.
AP1 (Applicant): Ecco, e concludo, perché i ricorrenti, io sono qui oggi, noi siamo qui per rappresentare i ricorrenti, ma dopo questa vicenda così unica, così straordinaria, io mi sento di parlare a nome di quei giuristi, di quei giudici, di quei pubblici ministeri, di quei giudici della Suprema Corte che hanno esattamente denunciato queste violazioni e che non si sono voluti fermare finché un obbligo istituzionale ha reso insormontabile il loro cammino.
AP1 (Applicant): Grazie.
Päivi Hirvelä (JudgeP): Thank you, Mr. Bauccio.
Päivi Hirvelä (JudgeP): And we have now come to the end of the hearing, and I thank the parties for their interventions and their answers to the court's question.
Päivi Hirvelä (JudgeP): And the court will now deliberate on the admissibility and the merits, and the judgment will be delivered later, and the parties will be informed of the date of delivery.
Päivi Hirvelä (JudgeP): And I declare the hearing closed.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Good morning and welcome to this public hearing organized by the European Court of Human Rights with the use of video conferencing technology, which has been made necessary due to the COVID-19 health crisis.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I wish to begin by thanking the applicant and the respondent government for their cooperation in preparing this hearing on the admissibility and merits in the case of NIT S.R.L. versus the Republic of Moldova, which I now declare open.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I should note before proceeding that this hearing is being recorded in its entirety and will be webcast in order to ensure its public character.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): It will be available to the public on the court's website tomorrow, Thursday, October 15th.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The application in the present case was lodged with the court on 11 May 2012 under Article 34 of the Convention by a limited liability company incorporated in Moldova, Noi le idee televizzate societate cu raspondere limitata, referred to as NIT S.R.L. in the proceedings.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): It was allocated to the second section of the court pursuant to Rule 51, paragraph 1 of the rules of court and was communicated to the government on 17 April 2018.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): On 3 March 2020, the chamber decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): At this hearing, the government are represented by their agent, Mr. Oleg Rotari, assisted by Ms. Doina Maimescu, advisor.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Ms. Alexandra Nica, counsel.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I welcome the representatives in the name of the court.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Having consulted the agent of the government and the representatives of the applicant, I have determined the order of addressees as follows.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Mr. Rotari for the government will speak first,
Robert Spano (JudgeP): and then Ms. Nica for the applicant.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I call Mr. Rotari.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Sir, you have the floor.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, Honorable Judges of the Grand Chamber,
GR1 (Government): distinguished guests, distinguished representative of the applicant company, may it please the court.
GR1 (Government): It is an honor for me to represent the Moldovan government in the case of NITSRL versus the Republic of Moldova, which concerns the allegedly unjustified withdrawal of a licensed operated TV channel.
GR1 (Government): The applicant was warned on numerous occasions by the domestic audiovisual authority for obvious lack of pluralism, for projecting biased programs favoring one single political party, and thus for presenting distorted information as truthful news.
GR1 (Government): Eventually, the company did not comply with them, and its license was lawfully lifted.
GR1 (Government): It complained against such a measure before this court, claiming primarily a violation of its freedom of expression under Article 10 of the convention and the number of other rights related to the alleged unfair trial and discriminatory treatment accompanied by the interference into its peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
GR1 (Government): The government are of the opinion that the principal scope of this case is to evaluate the legality, necessity, and most importantly, the proportionality of the interference into the applicant company's freedom of expression.
GR1 (Government): There is no dispute about the existence of an interference.
GR1 (Government): The question is to what extent it was justified in the particular circumstances of the present case.
GR1 (Government): Nevertheless, the government are convinced that the interference was compatible with the convention.
GR1 (Government): From the outset, the government acknowledge the vital role played nowadays by the media in a democratic society and the imperious need to protect their rights to freely impart information.
GR1 (Government): Their role is even more important when the information pertains to the matter of public interest.
GR1 (Government): The special role of the press as a public watchdog has been highlighted by the court in its consular case law.
GR1 (Government): This is especially true when the press appears to be the best tool affording the general public to discover and form an opinion about the ideas and attitudes of different political leaders.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the freedom of political debate lies at the very core of any democratic society, and its protection is guaranteed by the convention.
GR1 (Government): However, it is the convention that acknowledges that the exercise of its freedom must be balanced against the general interest and respect of the rights of others.
GR1 (Government): Thus, the freedom of expression could be subjected to limitations in exceptional circumstances when there is a public interest at stake.
GR1 (Government): In evaluating such interests, the authorities retain large margin of appreciation as they are better placed to ascertain the domestic specific context in which the interference occurred.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, the government underlined the fundamental incoherence in the applicant company's arguments produced before the grand chamber.
GR1 (Government): It stated that its TV broadcasting license was withdrawn even if the company had been committed to pluralism of opinions by including views expressed by an opposition party.
GR1 (Government): However, the withdrawal, the most severe sanction provided by law, was applied in the applicant's respect precisely for its unilateralism, and thus, lack of pluralism of its broadcasting policies.
GR1 (Government): The government underlined that the pluralism of the media must reflect the diversity of opinions.
GR1 (Government): While it is true that the minority opinion should be protected, it cannot be offered a preferential treatment in respect of the majority's opinion.
GR1 (Government): So both opinions represent pluralism, not the one prevailing the other.
GR1 (Government): Pluralism refers to diversity, and in its most general sense, it secures equality of diverse opinions.
GR1 (Government): There is a well-known distinction between internal pluralism and external pluralism of the media.
GR1 (Government): External pluralism covers the numbers of owners, media companies, independent editorial boards, channels, titles, or programs.
GR1 (Government): This type of pluralism is also known as the plurality of suppliers.
GR1 (Government): From the perspective of the free marketplace of ideas, competition among these media content suppliers is considered to be essential in order to ensure a free choice of media content and the availability of a wide variety of opinions and ideas.
GR1 (Government): Policies on media concentration are most concerned with the market power that owners or companies may gain and the subsequent possibility of exerting influence.
GR1 (Government): On the other hand, internal pluralism focuses on media content.
GR1 (Government): It reflects how social and political diversity are reflected in media content.
GR1 (Government): That is, the representation of different cultural groups in the media, as well as divergent political or ideological opinions and viewpoints.
GR1 (Government): Internal pluralism plays an important role in news and public affairs coverage, and also for public broadcasting and media landscapes, dominated by one or two players.
GR1 (Government): In the government's view, the applicant company's television channel exercised a considerable influence on the public since it had national coverage.
GR1 (Government): It rendered the reflected topics in news to satisfy to the interest of a single political party without taking into account broader public interests to know the opinion of other parties.
GR1 (Government): This fact led to a concentration of its content, thus depriving the public from pluralist view and knowledge of diverse opinions.
GR1 (Government): The government considered that there was no political diversity whatsoever in the content presented by the applicant company's TV channel.
GR1 (Government): Since the applicant failed to present any opinions of any other political movements, its media content actually manipulated the public knowledge of political issues.
GR1 (Government): In fact, the content could be classified as propaganda in the favor of a single political party.
GR1 (Government): It is obvious that these facts in themselves are contrary to ethical and to deontological standards of journalism.
GR1 (Government): In comparison, while other TV channels in Moldova might have criticized the opinions of other parties or expressed biased negative views on the opposing sides, they still presented opinions in their diversity, thus complying with the principle of political pluralism.
GR1 (Government): It should be duly noted that the applicant company's license withdrawal was the measure of the last resort.
GR1 (Government): Initially, the company was warned in March 2009 for the lack of pluralism and for favoring one political party.
GR1 (Government): A considerable number of subsequent warnings did follow, but to no avail.
GR1 (Government): The government find that the applicant company had plenty of time to re-enter into the area of legality and to comply with the numerous warnings and less intrusive sanctions ordered by the audiovisual council.
GR1 (Government): There were more than just one request from politicians and public figures requesting their rights to reply on the news touching them.
GR1 (Government): In their written submissions, the government illustrated many appeals to the audiovisual council, where these persons complained against consistent and repetitive breaches of journalism ethics and deontology by the applicant.
GR1 (Government): Namely, it either refused or delayed to offer the right to reply or at the very least, the right to have their opinions published in the news bulletins.
GR1 (Government): These examples prove in addition that the principle of internal pluralism was violated by the applicant company.
GR1 (Government): According to the audiovisual council, it should be also noted that other TV channels included the opinions of the political party favored by the applicant.
GR1 (Government): It can be inferred that the national authorities have duly complied with the principle of external pluralism.
GR1 (Government): In this sense, the withdrawal of the applicant company's license did not hinder whatsoever the dissemination of ideas or opinions of the political party concerned.
GR1 (Government): It allowed the general public to be aware of opinions of different political views in the country, including the party sponsored with the applicant's exclusive attention.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, the government underlying the independence of the audiovisual council.