TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): And this applied and issued just for requirements of assistance and rescue in favor of the applicants and all the immigrants in the same situations.
GR1 (Government): The legal basis of the different refoulement is under the Article 10, 2 of the Immigrants Act.
GR1 (Government): According to this procedure of a different refoulement, it's always provided an individual interview as always stated by the government because this interview is necessary to assess all the personal position and condition of the immigrants involved.
GR1 (Government): Such interviews that are carried out not only by the police or the operators acting inside the centers are also according to the agreement Italy and Tunisia held and carried out by the Tunisian Council.
GR1 (Government): And this interview is extremely relevant and necessary to assess the personal condition in view of the further and the subsequent repatriation of the immigrants involved.
GR1 (Government): Such interview is not only aimed at the identification of immigrant concern, as we have repeatedly stated, but as we have also demonstrated by factual circumstances, this interview is also and relevantly aimed to assess other conditions, the personal condition, individual condition of the immigrant who has invited, who has asked to represent all his personal situation, not only the identity, but also the characteristics and personal concerns like the minor age or other situation of health conditions or vulnerability.
GR1 (Government): As we have demonstrated during the same time, the applicants were in the center of Lampedusa.
GR1 (Government): Many people assessed as vulnerable people were not repatriated.
GR1 (Government): And before the interview with the Tunisian Council, we already distinct to other facilities and to other protocol of reception.
GR1 (Government): We have already demonstrated that according to the list filed by the Italian government, at that time, 72 people, immigrants, representing vulnerable condition or other request for asylum seeker or international protection was accommodated in a different reception condition.
GR1 (Government): In any case, the importance of this individual talk with the Tunisian Council is, in addition to the assessment of all these situations concerning the immigrant, are aimed at the release of the travel document, which is a condition, a necessary condition in each case of repatriation, as this deferred referement is.
GR1 (Government): And so, because if the Tunisian Council does not assess, is not able to assess the nationality, or even if it, for example, assess other obstacles to repatriation, for example, it happened that maybe can emerge some elements about criminal responsibilities.
GR1 (Government): And so the involvement of other Italian authorities in the case, maybe it could be also an obstacle to repatriation.
GR1 (Government): So it's not an identification issue underlying these individual talks, but the assessment of all the conditions involves that specific immigrant.
GR1 (Government): For this reason, we firmly contest the comparison made by the court in decision between the instant case of deferred referement just carried out for rescue and assistance purpose, as we always, and until now, we have repeated, and the case law concerning collective expulsion, because we have found, as repeatedly state, that in this case, the immigrants involved have received the assessment of all the conditions and the situation strictly related to the personal situation.
GR1 (Government): Just the last issue, we have also stated in the formal pleadings that this deferred referement has a legal basis in Italy in Article 10, and it was assessed as lawfully carried out also by the domestic judicial authority, and we insist in this argument.
GR1 (Government): About the other reply to the other questions posed by the honorable judges, I give the floor to my colleague for the expulsion about the detailed data that the court has required.
GR1 (Government): I reiterate that we are not able to deepen nowadays our arguments about the question, which serves to file written submission.
GR1 (Government): I give the floor to my colleague.
GR2 (Government): Your Honorable Judges, as about your questions to the figures of immigration flows which affected Italy and Sicily in particular in 2011, I would like to stress that in Sicily, in the period from March to September 2011, about 57,000 migrants landed just in Sicily.
GR2 (Government): And of these, about 28,000 were Tunisian nationals.
GR2 (Government): And of these 28,000 Tunisian nationals, almost the majority of them were young males in good health conditions.
GR2 (Government): And in the majority of cases, they were economic migrants.
GR2 (Government): And so specifically in the very days when the applicants stayed at the center at Lampedusa, there were about exactly 900, let me check, 917 people were staying at the facility in Lampedusa at Contrada Imbriacola.
GR2 (Government): And again, they were all males, young males, and in good health conditions.
GR2 (Government): Since other migrants were found in serious conditions or who had anyway shown that they wanted to apply for asylum and that they needed anyway any other kind of protection, they were moved to the other center located in Lampedusa, or they were transferred by air to the mainland or to other centers in Sicily.
GR2 (Government): And about the conditions in the Contrada Imbriacola Center, we would like to stress that we have a certificate from the provincial health unit of Agrigento stating that the conditions at the facility were proper and that meals were served, warm meals that were cooked on site.
GR2 (Government): And then they were sealed to be given to the migrants.
GR2 (Government): And so of course, there were about 900 people, so it was not an ideal condition.
GR2 (Government): But you have to consider that it was just the moment that it was not easy to deal with.
GR2 (Government): And again, there were young people, males, in good health conditions.
GR2 (Government): And there's no evidence at all that any of them suffered any physical suffering.
GR2 (Government): There's no certificate, no medical proof that any of these people actually suffered so serious conditions that caused physical or psychological serious permanent damage.
GR2 (Government): Again, about the individual talks, we would like to stress that besides identification, which consisted in assessing the nationality and the personal data of the person concerned, these interviews took place at the presence of not only of staff from the police, but also the presence of an interpreter or a cultural mediator was ensured so that the migrant could speak in his or her mother tongue.
GR2 (Government): And if in any way they would show that they had any reasons to stay in the country, I mean, if they had health issues or family issues, I mean, that they would risk any sort of damage they could suffer if not accepted in the national territory, of course, that was considered by the authorities.
GR2 (Government): That's why other people were moved to the other center in Lampedusa.
GR2 (Government): And the fact that, as we have told previously, there's a huge quantity of this information sheet, which is available in the case file, and it's at disposal of the court.
GR2 (Government): And these huge thousands of sheets that were filled out for migrants.
GR2 (Government): And it's quite serious that the counterpart says that these interviews never took place and that these sheets don't exist.
GR2 (Government): As we have said many times, there was this big fire, a serious one, that destroyed part of the center.
GR2 (Government): And the fact that the paper is not available doesn't mean at all, it's no evidence at all of the serious allegations of the counterpart that these interviews never took part.
GR2 (Government): On the other hand, the evidence is given by the fact that other migrants who expressed their wish to apply for any kind of protection were taken somewhere else.
GR2 (Government): And one thing the court should take into account is that the applicants, as the majority of the Tunisian migrants who arrived at the same time, they never intended to apply for any kind of protections because they were well aware that that would have brought them to enter the Dublin system.
GR2 (Government): That's to say, to stay in Italy for the whole procedure, something they didn't want to do at all because they were wishing to go in other countries, especially in North Europe.
GR2 (Government): And so about the agreement between Italy and Tunisia, it was just the agreement was just setting operational procedures to make repatriation and identification faster.
GR2 (Government): But the agreement, the content of agreement, was widely available even on the internet and the website, both of the Italian Home Office and of the Tunisian Ministry of the Interior.
GR2 (Government): At that time, the agreement had been signed.
GR2 (Government): That's to say, in April 2011, so many months before the applicants' arrival, it was available on their websites.
GR2 (Government): And even if you just make a simple search on Google, if you just Google, you will find out that news about this agreement, about the content, the fact that it was dealt to manage with its extraordinary migration flows from Tunisia, they were widely available, not only on the websites of the states' institutions, but even on some newspapers from France, Arabic countries, and even on some blogs.
GR2 (Government): So we think that it's pretty unlikely that young people intending to reach Italy in an illegal position didn't know anything about the fact that they would have been repatriated soon and according to these new procedures.
GR2 (Government): So in conclusion, Your Honor, any further evidence you may need about the identification and about the interviews that took place will be provided.
GR2 (Government): I mean, of course, it's not related to the three immigrants because, as we said, they got destroyed.
GR2 (Government): But that doesn't mean that they never took place, which, again, is a quite serious allegation from the counterpart.
GR2 (Government): And so we are at your disposal to provide any of these information sheets that were filled out for the other migrants.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Ok, thank you.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Nous arrivons au terme de l'audience.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Je remercie les comparants qui ont assisté à la Cour par leur intervention et leur réponse à ces questions.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): La Cour va maintenant délivrer le fond de l'affaire et le reste sera rendu ultérieurement.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Les partis seront informés de la date du prononcé.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): L'audience élève.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of X against Latvia.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): The case was lodged with the court on the 8th of May, 2009 under Article 34 of the convention by a Latvian national.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the third section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, paragraph 1 of the rules of court.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): It was communicated to the government on the 23rd of March, 2010.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): On the 13th of December, 2011, a chamber of that section declared the application partly admissible and delivered a judgment in which it held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the convention.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): On the 13th of March, 2012, the government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the convention.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): The panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on the 4th of June, 2012.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): On the 23rd of July, 2012, the 24th of July, 2012, and the 21st of August, 2012, the president of the Grand Chamber granted leave under Rule 44, paragraph 3 of the rules of the court for the Czech government, the reunite child international child abduction center, and the Finnish government to make written submissions as third parties.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): The defending government are represented by the agent, Ms. Kristīne Līce, assisted by Ms. Inga Reine, counsel,
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): and Ms. Anta Rutka-Kriškalne, advisor.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Roberts Strauss.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): I also welcome a group of Polish and Ukrainian judges and groups of Czech, Monegasque, and Russian lawyers who are visiting the court.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): Mr. Strauss for the applicant will speak first,
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): and then Ms. Līce for the government.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpretation in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpretation into Polish and Russian has also been authorized for the benefit of the groups visiting the court.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): That interpretation is not arranged by the court, and no transcription of the oral translation will be included in the official record of the proceedings.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): I call Mr. Strauss.
AP1 (Applicant): Your judges, in my speech I would like to point out two main questions. Does Latvia
AP1 (Applicant): Pre-Or Family Court of Australia's decision on November 6, 2008, which granted joint custody of the children, their parents, was competent to initiate procedure for the prompted birth of children? Does Latvia use all adequate instruments to verify and ensure the children's
AP1 (Applicant): return to Australia will be in the best interest of the child? On September 22, 2008, the Ministry
AP1 (Applicant): of Children and Family Affairs received documents from the Australian Comptaint Authority which requested to initiate procedure for the prompt return of the children. The Australian Comptaint
AP1 (Applicant): Authority attached to their request an affidavit that confirms T parental rights to E. However,
AP1 (Applicant): it doesn't release Latvia for obligation to clarify why the person who lodges application is not mentioned either in child birth certificate or in passport. Taking care of their nationality
AP1 (Applicant): was Latvia's responsibility to use their rights to refuse to initiate procedure for the prompt return of the children.
AP1 (Applicant): Hague Convention on the Hague Convention, paragraph 13, states that the judicial or administrative authority of the request state is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return, establishing the person, institution or other body having the care of the person, of the child, was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention. At the time of child's
AP1 (Applicant): removal, X was a single mother. If the child's father has not signed the birth certificate,
AP1 (Applicant): then the custody of the child belongs to the mother. The child's father at any time can
AP1 (Applicant): openly acknowledge paternity in court, which may grant joint custody to both parents.
AP1 (Applicant): So he did. Before child's removal, he refused to testify his parental rights. If he was
AP1 (Applicant): a loving father and willing to use his parental rights, what was the obstacle to show his name in the child birth certificate? This may raise suspicious persons' intentions toward
AP1 (Applicant): child. Latvia's competent authorities did not consider this fact as very important.
AP1 (Applicant): It was more important to police to the larger country. Nevertheless, T decided to start
AP1 (Applicant): legal proceedings in Australia to prove his parental rights to the child. Such an action
AP1 (Applicant): is called a desperate action because the person realizes that he is not competent to submit an application for prompt return of children until the moment he will prove his parental rights. He denied it till the last moment. On November 6, 2008, the Australian
AP1 (Applicant): Family Court, in the absence of evidence, in the absence of applicants, decided that both applicant and T had joint parental responsibility for their child since the day of birth. The decision was made three months after the e-removal to Latvia. Neither
AP1 (Applicant): Riga City District Court nor Riga Regional Court evaluated this issue that on the moment of e-removal on July 17, 2008, applicant was single mother. On this basis, raised the question
AP1 (Applicant): whether e-removal from Australia could be considered as a violation of convention.
AP1 (Applicant): Following in court proceedings in Australia with regard to child's custody, I see that the main goal of this process is not to ensure the best interest of the child, but to keep the child away from mother. There is recausation between all of these procedures
AP1 (Applicant): in Latvia and in Australia after that. On December 13, 2001, court paid attention
AP1 (Applicant): to the fact that domestic court failed to conduct in-depth examination of entire family situation and of a whole series of factors, in particular, of factual, emotional, psychological, material, and medical nature, and the nature of the family material and medical nature, and made a balanced and a reasonable assessment of the respective interest of each person with a constant concern of determining what the best solution would be for the abducted child in the context of an application to return to his country of origin. It was Latvia's court duty to ask the Australia's competent
AP1 (Applicant): authorities to undertake an assessment of T, ability to provide adequate care and welfare to his children, as well as information about care, welfare, and living conditions of father. Based on home visit and as well as information about the
AP1 (Applicant): financial capacity of T to take care of E. T even had financial difficulties which
AP1 (Applicant): had led him to give false declarations in order to obtain social benefits. It could
AP1 (Applicant): rise to the suspicion that T's main reason to return the child to Australia is to use her as extra source of income. Right after the child was returned to Australia,
AP1 (Applicant): the local family court made the decision that the mother was restrained from discussing publicly any information referring to the child. It also ruled that the applicant
AP1 (Applicant): could visit the child under supervision of a social worker, and that until the child reached the age of 11, the applicant was restrained from attending or communicating with any child care facility, preschool, or school attended by the child, or with the parent of any other child attending the same institution. She was also prohibited
AP1 (Applicant): from speaking to the child in Latvia. As provided by the Conventions of the Rights
AP1 (Applicant): of the Child, adopted November 20, 1989, parties shall ensure that the child shall not be separated from his or her parents again, they will accept when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine in accordance with applicable law and procedures that such separation is necessary for the best interest of the child. Such a determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving
AP1 (Applicant): abuse or neglect of the child by the parents. Reading the Court materials, it is clear
AP1 (Applicant): that T does not have necessary skills and desire to take care of child properly.
AP1 (Applicant): As is written by his words in affidavit paragraph 10B of September 21, 2012, T approved that he do physically discipline if he is on the view that her behavior is really unsafe or she has been very naughty over a longish period. For example, constantly
AP1 (Applicant): being rude or disobeying her father. He physically disciplines his daughter by smacking
AP1 (Applicant): her on the bottom about three or four times a year. On occasion he uses liner or
AP1 (Applicant): child's belt. This kind of behavior can be explained that she is not willing to live
AP1 (Applicant): with her father or she is not satisfied with parental skills or not mentally strong.
AP1 (Applicant): Also, as it's pronounced in e-school interception documents, T regularly smacks her daughter on the bottom, yelling to daughter very often, using usually taking her to school too late. Once he said to her daughter that he would not pick her up
AP1 (Applicant): from the school if she will keep telling that she wants to live with her mother now. With this, I want to draw Court attention to the fact how important it is to examine
AP1 (Applicant): every single issue in depth. It's not what will happen to the children right after
AP1 (Applicant): return to his own country. So that's the reason we need to know is it in best
AP1 (Applicant): interest of child or not. And I'll take into account all above mentioned and I think
AP1 (Applicant): the Court shouldn't be revised to preview this judgment from December 13, 2011. Thank you.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Strauss. Then I call Ms. Līce, please.
GR2 (Government): Mr. President of the court, distinguished judges,
GR2 (Government): ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to explain the terms I will use throughout my statement.
GR2 (Government): In order to refer to the 1980 Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, I will use the phrase the Hague Convention.
GR2 (Government): When referring to the European Convention on Human Rights, I will use the phrase the European Convention.
GR2 (Government): And finally, when referring to the European Court of Human Rights, I will use the term the court, or occasionally the Strasbourg Court.
GR2 (Government): I would like to take the opportunity presented by this hearing to highlight some factual and legal aspects of the present case, X versus Latvia, which make it stand out among the Hague Convention cases previously examined by this court.
GR2 (Government): First of all, let me briefly recall the facts of the case.
GR2 (Government): In July of 2008, the applicant took her daughter and left Australia for Latvia without the knowledge or consent of the child's father.
GR2 (Government): In August, the father of the child initiated proceedings before the Australian courts to confirm his parental rights with respect to the child.
GR2 (Government): Already in September, the Latvian authorities received a request from the father to have the child returned to Australia.
GR2 (Government): In October, the first court hearing took place in Latvia.
GR2 (Government): And already in January, which is less than four months after the receipt of the initial request, the Latvian courts adopted their final decision ordering the return of the child to Australia.
GR2 (Government): As I will explain later, the swiftness of the proceedings did not mean that the Latvian courts failed to carefully examine the circumstances of the case.
GR2 (Government): The Latvian courts requested, for example, expert opinion from the orphan's court.
GR2 (Government): And it was also presented with the report from psychologists.
GR2 (Government): It should be emphasized that throughout the proceedings before the Latvian courts, the applicants attempted to mislead the national court, as well as attempted to prevent the Latvian authorities from assisting the child's father to establish supervised contacts with the child.
GR2 (Government): I will now turn to the legal aspects of the present case.
GR2 (Government): The court has asked the parties to the present case a question concerning the interaction between the Hague Convention and Article 8 of the European Convention, as interpreted in the court's case law.
GR2 (Government): The government of Latvia believes that there is no established hierarchy between these two international instruments, meaning they should be interpreted harmoniously, complementing each other.
GR2 (Government): As the general background, I would like to note that it is uncontested that the cases of international child abduction refer to traumatic situations experienced by both the parents and the child.
GR2 (Government): These situations stem from irresponsible and sometimes unlawful actions by the parents.