TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): C'est vrai que l'avis du procureur général auprès de la Cour suprême, c'était de l'autre sens, avec une certaine prudence, il n'était pas très impressif, très affirmatif, il avait une certaine réserve, mais c'était dans ce sens.
GR1 (Government): Toutefois, c'était un avis, c'est une opinion sur un concept qui ne liait pas à l'Etat.
GR1 (Government): L'Etat s'est lié à l'arrêt qui a été rendu par la suite et qui n'a pas suivi.
GR1 (Government): Et qui n'a pas suivi cet avis.
GR1 (Government): Il est, bien sûr, aussi lié à l'arrêt de la Cour que nous avons interprété comme n'imposant pas la réouverture.
GR1 (Government): Et je profite pour répondre à une question que j'ai oubliée, c'est la question de l'utilisation de l'expression en principe.
GR1 (Government): En fait, l'arrêt de la Cour européenne a dit qu'en principe, ce moyen était un moyen adéquat.
GR1 (Government): La Cour suprême a compris que cette expression ne l'imposait pas de suivre ce moyen.
GR1 (Government): Tout dépendait des circonstances du cas, tout dépendait de la loi interne, des règles de la recommandation et de l'interprétation qu'il ferait s'il s'agissait d'une situation de grave doute ou non.
GR1 (Government): Et je répète qu'il s'agissait seulement d'une amende de 50-30 euros dont la réouverture pourrait conduire, une fois que nous parlons seulement d'une responsabilité diminuée, pourrait conduire, par exemple, à une amende de 300 euros.
GR1 (Government): C'était une chose que je pense n'est pas d'une grande gravité et que justifie la réouverture telle qu'elle est conçue par la loi interne et par la recommandation.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Maintenant la parole est à M. Jorge Alves.
AP1 (Applicant): Monsieur le Président, Mesdames les juges, Monsieur le juge.
AP1 (Applicant): Sur la première question, l'effet pratique de la décision de condamnation.
AP1 (Applicant): La récurrente a été condamnée à une amende de 530 euros.
AP1 (Applicant): Elle a aussi été condamnée à payer dommage intérêt aux deux récurrents devant le tribunal national, c'est-à-dire aux partis civils.
AP1 (Applicant): Elle a dû payer 900 euros et une exécution, comme on peut le voir à la feuille 33 de l'annexe, de l'exécution, elle a dû payer 1378 euros et 38 centimes.
AP1 (Applicant): Elle s'est acquittée de tout, elle a tout payé, et comme nous avons déjà souligné, elle a bénéficié devant le tribunal national d'aide judiciaire, et ici devant cette grande chambre, elle bénéficie d'aide judiciaire, donc, et c'est vrai, malheureusement, elle n'a pas de revenu, elle n'a pas de ressources, ce sont ses fils qui ont payé en fait, soit l'amende, soit les dommages intérêts.
AP1 (Applicant): Alors, les conséquences, une amende de 530 euros, les dommages intérêts, plus charge et frais de justice, qu'elle a tout payé, et cette condamnation entraîne aussi des conséquences sur son casier judiciaire, on a criminal record.
AP1 (Applicant): Comme Madame la représentante du gouvernement l'a déjà dit, selon l'article 5 de la loi portugaise, d'identification criminelle, article 5, ils sont inscrits sur le registre criminel les condamnations qui appliquent des peines, notamment.
AP1 (Applicant): Et comme le gouvernement l'a déjà souligné, selon l'article 5, 15, la même loi, la dernière mise à jour de la loi de l'identification criminelle, la première, c'est la loi 5788 de 18 août, la dernière loi qui fait quelques ajouts, c'est la loi 37 de 2015 du 5 mai, et je disais que, au moins, pendant 5 ans, après le jugement ayant force de choses jugées, sur son casier judiciaire, est inscrite cette condamnation. Je n'ai pas ici l'extrait du casier judiciaire,
AP1 (Applicant): mais c'est la loi portugaise qui le dit. Alors, je crois que maintenant, aujourd'hui,
AP1 (Applicant): si son casier judiciaire est inscrit, la peine, si j'ai bien compris ce que madame la représentative a écrit, alors, en tout cas de cause, pendant 5 ans, si son casier judiciaire était inscrit, c'était inscrit cette condamnation.
AP1 (Applicant): Pendant 5 ans. Sur les raisons d'être de cette nouvelle requête,
AP1 (Applicant): comme on a déjà souligné, on se plaint de la violation de l'article 6 et 46, on se plaint de l'inéquité de la décision de la Cour suprême portugaise, et on prend en compte l'avis du procureur général à Dujuan, près de la Cour suprême portugaise, et on se plaint aussi de la mauvaise application de la loi portugaise sur l'admissibilité de la révision. Ce qui est en cause,
AP1 (Applicant): c'est l'application de l'article 449 du Code de procédure pénale portugais, fondement et admissibilité de la révision. Alors, c'est tout, je crois.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, M. Alves.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Je remercie les comparants qui ont assisté la Cour par leurs interventions et leurs réponses aux questions.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Ilnseher  versus Germany.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The applications were lodged with the court on 24 February 2012 and 4 April 2014, respectively, under Article 34 of the Convention by a German national, Mr. Daniel Ilnseher .
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): They were allocated to the Fifth Section of the Court, pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of the Court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The applications were partly communicated to the governments on 26 November 2013 and 22 December 2014, respectively.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): In February 2017, a chamber of the Fifth Section joined the applications, declared them partly admissible, and delivered a judgment in which it held that there had been no violation of Articles 5, Paragraph 1, 5, Paragraph 4, 6, Paragraph 1, and 7, Paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): In March 2017, the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, and the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 29 May 2017.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 30 August 2017, the European Prison Litigation Network was granted leave under Article 36, Paragraph 2 of the Convention, and Rule 44, Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Rules of the Court, to make written submissions to the Court as a third party.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The governments are represented by their agents, Mrs. Almut Wittling-Vogel and Mrs. Katja Behr of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection,
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): assisted by Professor Thomas Giegerich, Counsel, and by Mrs. Petra Viebig-Ehlert, Mrs. Kristina Müller, Mr. Bernd Bösert,
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Mr. Christoph-Severin Haase, Mr. Soledad Bender, and Mr. Andreas Stegmann, Advisors.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Ingo-Jens Tegebauer and Mr. Markus Mavany, Counsel, assisted by Mrs. Diana Thörnich, Advisor.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I also welcome a delegation of Dutch judges and prosecutors, a delegation of Russian judges who are on study visit to the Court, and a delegation of judges from Azerbaijan.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I would explain that, in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the Court, English and French, interpreting into Russian has been authorized for the benefit of the group of judges from Russia.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): In addition, interpreting into Azerbaijani has been authorized for the benefit of the judges of Azerbaijan I mentioned before.
Guido Raimondi (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.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Having consulted the agents of the Government and the representative of the applicant, I have determined the order of addresses as follows.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Mr. Tegebauer and Mr. Mavany for the applicant will speak first, and then Mr. Giegerich for the Government.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I call Mr. Tegebauer, you are the floor, please.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, distinguished judges of the court,
AP1 (Applicant): the court is already familiar with the facts of the case.
AP1 (Applicant): Before dealing with the substance of the applicant's complaints, I will therefore only briefly spotlight the main events.
AP1 (Applicant): In 1997, at the age of 19, the applicant committed a murder.
AP1 (Applicant): At this time, national law did not provide for preventive detention of young offenders.
AP1 (Applicant): In 1999, the Regensburg Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder, and applying the criminal law relating to young offenders, sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment.
AP1 (Applicant): Shortly before he had fully served his prison sentence, national law was amended.
AP1 (Applicant): The legislator made it possible to order preventive detention against young offenders.
AP1 (Applicant): In 2009, the Regensburg Regional Court ordered the applicant's preventive detention.
AP1 (Applicant): In May 2011, the Federal Constitutional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court for a retrial.
AP1 (Applicant): Two days after the Federal Constitutional Court's judgment, the Regional Court ordered the applicant's provisional preventive detention.
AP1 (Applicant): In August 2012, the Regional Court, the resumed main proceedings, again ordered the applicant's preventive detention.
AP1 (Applicant): At the outset, the preventive detention was executed in a separate wing of a prison.
AP1 (Applicant): Since June 2013, until today, it is executed in a newly built facility on the premises of the prison, accommodating only persons in preventive detention.
AP1 (Applicant): Concerning the period until June 2013, the government acknowledged the violation of the applicant's rights under Article V, paragraph 1, and Article VII, paragraph 1 of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was also granted compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
AP1 (Applicant): Regarding this period, the chamber decided to strike the case out of its list of cases.
AP1 (Applicant): At issue before the grand chamber is the applicant's preventive detention based on the Regional Court's judgment of 3 August 2012 and the period of detention after 20 June 2013.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant claims that the preventive detention after June 2013 violates Article V, paragraph 1, and Article VII, paragraph 1 of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): He further maintains that the length of the proceedings by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his provisional preventive detention violates the speed requirement of Article V, paragraph 4 of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, he contends that Judge P had been biased against him in the main proceedings on preventive detention in breach of Article VI, paragraph 1 of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): I will now address the applicant's complaint under Article V, paragraph 1 of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant's preventive detention is not justified by any of the subparagraphs A to F of Article V, paragraph 1.
AP1 (Applicant): In particular, it does not fall within the scope of subparagraph E, permitting the lawful detention of persons of unsound mind.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant's detention was ordered under Article VII, paragraph 2, number 1, and Article 105, paragraph 1, of the Juvenile Court Act, read in conjunction with the Federal Constitutional Court's judgment of 4 May 2011.
AP1 (Applicant): The judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court provides that under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Juvenile Court Act, preventive detention may only be ordered if a high risk of the most serious offenses of violence or sexual offenses can be inferred from specific circumstances in the person or the conduct of the detainee, and the detainee suffers from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Therapy Detention Act.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant observes that he had not reliably been shown to be of unsound mind before the applicant was placed in preventive detention by the judgment at issue of the Regensburg Regional Court of 3 August 2012.
AP1 (Applicant): He had already been examined by various experts.
AP1 (Applicant): Three experts did not find him to suffer from a mental disorder warranting compulsory confinement.
AP1 (Applicant): In the proceedings at issue, the Regensburg Regional Court ordered a fresh examination of the applicant by two external psychiatric experts.
AP1 (Applicant): One of the experts found that the applicant suffers from sexual sadism and poses a high risk.
AP1 (Applicant): The other expert, however, heard that it is doubtful whether the applicant still suffers from such a mental disorder.
AP1 (Applicant): He also heard that the applicant poses a medium and not a high risk with regard to future offenses.
AP1 (Applicant): In sum, half of the experts did not find the applicant to suffer from sexual sadism.
AP1 (Applicant): In the applicant's view, taking into account that half of the experts disagree, there is not a reliable proof of a true mental disorder.
AP1 (Applicant): From 10 June 2015 to 30 June 2017, the applicant regularly underwent one-to-one psychotherapy by Mr. K, a psychologist of the Center
AP1 (Applicant): for Preventive Detention.
AP1 (Applicant): A report of the Center of 29 September 2016 states that 71 conversations, of which 60 were therapy sessions, took place.
AP1 (Applicant): In this report, the psychologist Mr. K
AP1 (Applicant): states that he cannot confirm that the applicant suffers from sexual sadism.
AP1 (Applicant): He holds either a mental disorder or, he holds, I quote, a hidden sadistic inclination, as Dr. B, in the year of 2015, found in his report
AP1 (Applicant): based on the file, cannot be confirmed until today from a therapeutic point of view, end of quote.
AP1 (Applicant): On 30 May 2017, the Center for Preventive Detention informed the applicant about its decision to discontinue the therapy provided by psychologist Mr. K
AP1 (Applicant): because the psychologist holds that the applicant does not suffer from sexual sadism.
AP1 (Applicant): Since 1 July 2017, therapy is offered by Mr. R, another psychologist of the Center.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant disagrees with this decision and refuses to continue therapy with Mr. R since then.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, the new Center for Preventive Detention is not an appropriate institution for the detention of persons of unsound mind.
AP1 (Applicant): According to the case law of the court, the detention of a person as a mental health patient is only lawful for the purposes of subparagraph E of Article V, paragraph 1, if affected in a hospital, clinic, or other appropriate institution.
AP1 (Applicant): The conditions of the applicant's accommodation in the new facility have improved.
AP1 (Applicant): The cells measure 15 square meters and are furnished in contrast to prison cells.
AP1 (Applicant): With a cooking facility, refrigerator, and shower, inmates are permitted to wear their own clothes.
AP1 (Applicant): They can stay outside their cell between 6 AM and 10.30 PM.
AP1 (Applicant): The center also offers opportunities for recreational activities and sport.
AP1 (Applicant): In contrast, until 20 June 2013, in the wing for persons in preventive detention in Straubing Prison, the applicant was accommodated in a prison cell with a bed, a chair, a table, and a toilet.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the preventive detention center lacks a therapeutic environment.
AP1 (Applicant): It accommodates in total a number of 57 offenders.
AP1 (Applicant): The vast majority of these persons is not diagnosed to be of unsound mind.
AP1 (Applicant): They are not mental health patients.
AP1 (Applicant): They are placed in preventive detention and not in psychiatry.
AP1 (Applicant): Only five people there, including the applicant, are mental health patients.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, the therapeutic environment is still much more like a prison than like a psychiatry.
AP1 (Applicant): I will now deal with Article 5, Paragraph 4 of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant disagrees with the Chamber's view that the total length of the proceedings about the lawfulness of his provisional preventive detention, and notably the length of the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court, complied with Article 5, Paragraph 4.
AP1 (Applicant): The provisional preventive detention of the applicant was ordered on 6 May, 2011.
AP1 (Applicant): On 22 May, 2012, the Federal Constitutional Court declined the applicant's constitutional complaint of 7 September, 2011.
AP1 (Applicant): The decision was served on the applicant's counsel on 30 May, 2012.
AP1 (Applicant): The proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court, therefore, lasted eight months and 23 days.
AP1 (Applicant): The Chamber, in its judgment, held that the special features of constitutional complaint proceedings must be taken into account.
AP1 (Applicant): The Constitutional Court only examined the detention order's compliance with the fundamental right of liberty.
AP1 (Applicant): It did not do so as an additional fourth instance.
AP1 (Applicant): However, in the applicant's view, this special feature does not justify a longer duration of the proceedings.
AP1 (Applicant): The Constitutional Court, only examining compliance with a fundamental right to liberty, could be expected to take a decision within reasonable time as the Regensburg Regional Court and the Court of Appeal did, examining compliance of the detention order with a code of criminal procedure and the Juvenile Court Act.
AP1 (Applicant): The different provisions to be examined by the courts do not influence the length of the proceedings.
AP1 (Applicant): While in appeal proceedings before the ordinary courts, delays exceeding three to four weeks are already susceptible under Article V, Paragraph 4, in the present case, the Federal Constitutional Court took about 10 times longer to take a decision, namely, eight months and 23 days.
AP1 (Applicant): The complexity of the case to which the Chamber refers does also not justify the duration of the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court.
AP1 (Applicant): The judges of the Federal Constitutional Court were familiar with the circumstances of the applicant's case.
AP1 (Applicant): Only about a year ago, on 4th May, 2011, in its leading judgment on preventive detention, had the court decided the lawfulness of the applicant's preventive detention.
AP1 (Applicant): The decision on the applicant's constitutional complaint of 7th September, 2011, was taken by three of the same judges, who had already taken the decision of 4th May, 2011.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, the proceedings by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his provisional preventive detention did not comply with a speed requirement of Article V, Paragraph 4 of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): my distinguished colleague, Mr. Mervani,
AP1 (Applicant): will now deal with the Grand Chamber's question about Article VII of the Convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Please, Mr. Mavany, you have the floor.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, Honorable Judges of the Court,
AP2 (Applicant): the Court in its questions to the parties posed the following question.
AP2 (Applicant): Does the applicant's preventive detention, served as from 20th June 2013 in the Straubing Preventive Detention Center, amount to a penalty within the meaning of Article 7?
AP2 (Applicant): Yes, it does, on legal and factual grounds.
AP2 (Applicant): In its case law, for instance, in M versus Germany, or Bergman versus Germany, the Court found preventive detention to constitute a penalty under Article 7.
AP2 (Applicant): Likewise did the Federal Constitutional Court in its leading judgment of 4th of May 2011.
AP2 (Applicant): Regarding the applicant's preventive detention until 20th June 2013, the qualification of preventive detention as penalty is undisputed.
AP2 (Applicant): By its unilateral declaration of 23rd May 2014, the government admitted the breach of Article 7 and the qualification of preventive detention as a penalty.
AP2 (Applicant): In the present case, the chamber in paragraph 81 of its judgment held that the applicant's preventive detention from 20th June 2013 onwards is no longer to be qualified as a penalty.
AP2 (Applicant): This change of qualification is based on the different conditions of the execution of preventive detention in the new preventive detention center.
AP2 (Applicant): Likewise argued the government in its written observations.
AP2 (Applicant): The concept of penalty is autonomous in scope.
AP2 (Applicant): The court in its case law looks at five criteria to qualify a measure as a penalty according to Article 7.
AP2 (Applicant): The conditions of the execution is just one of them.
AP2 (Applicant): In contrast to the chamber's findings, the conditions of the execution indicate that preventive detention is still a penalty.
AP2 (Applicant): Admittedly, the conditions in the Straubing Preventive Detention Center have been modified compared to the applicant's detention before 20th June 2013.
AP2 (Applicant): There are bigger cells, more therapeutic personnel, and extended times in which the cells are not looked at.
AP2 (Applicant): But the Straubing Preventive Detention Center is still part of and located on the grounds of a penalty institution.
AP2 (Applicant): As it had shown on the pictures submitted by the government to the court on 8th November 2017, windows in the center are barred, the inner courtyard and the whole institution are under video surveillance.
AP2 (Applicant): There were 71 new positions created in the Straubing Preventive Detention Center.
AP2 (Applicant): According to the government's final action report of 1st December 2014 on compliance with the judgment in the case group M versus Germany, only 13 of this 71 new positions consist of therapeutic staff, general administrative staff, and uniform prison officers from the bigger part.
AP2 (Applicant): Therefore, the conditions in the Straubing Preventive Detention Center differ fundamentally from the situation in psychiatric hospitals.
AP2 (Applicant): One of the criteria to classify a measure as a penalty is whether it is imposed following conviction for criminal offense.
AP2 (Applicant): In this context, the government stated that the applicant's preventive detention was not ordered together with the conviction for a criminal offense, but later on in a separate proceeding.
AP2 (Applicant): This disregards that preventive detention cannot be ordered without a previous conviction of a criminal offense.
AP2 (Applicant): The importance of a conviction of an offense for the imposition of preventive detention becomes obvious when comparing other measures under domestic law relating to persons who are classified to be a significant danger to the general public, but did not commit an offense.
AP2 (Applicant): In absence of a conviction for an offense, a person who suffers from a mental disorder, regardless whether the applicant fulfills this condition or not, falls within the scope of the law of the land of Bavaria on the detention of persons of unsound mind, not to be confused with the Therapy Detention Act.
AP2 (Applicant): Article 1, paragraph 1 of the law of the land of Bavaria on the detention of persons of unsound mind allows a person to be hospitalized if the person poses a significant danger to general public.
AP2 (Applicant): Preventive detention is not even mentioned by this law as an admissible measure for persons who have never been convicted for a crime.
AP2 (Applicant): Thus, the applicant's preventive detention was imposed following conviction for a criminal offense.
AP2 (Applicant): The provisions governing the order and execution of preventive detention are still part of the criminal court and the code of criminal procedure.
AP2 (Applicant): This characterizes preventive detention as a criminal law measure under domestic law, one of the court's criteria to classify a measure as a penalty under Article 7.
AP2 (Applicant): Preventive detention in general, and in this case, is a measure ordered by a criminal court as a part of a criminal justice system.
AP2 (Applicant): The government, in its written observations, holds that that can be explained by considerations of practicability.