TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): In addition, it cannot be argued that the applicants in the present case acted as whistleblowers, concerning that according to the 2014 committee of ministers recommendation on the protection of whistleblowers, a whistleblower is defined as a person who reports or discloses information on a threat or harm to the public interest in the context of their work based relationship, whether it be in the public or private sector.
GR1 (Government): Information that the applicants reported to the authorities of Brcko district were not reported in the context of their work based relationship, considering that they are not employees, but non-governmental organizations.
GR1 (Government): It is quite evident that the applicants, as Bosniak non-governmental organizations representing the interests of Bosniaks, in the present case acted as lobbyists of the candidate of the Bosniak people for the position of a director of the radio by reporting the family information against the candidate from the Serb people to the highest authorities.
GR1 (Government): The impugned letter represents a specific political pressure in relation to the appointment of a director of the radio.
GR1 (Government): It is exactly because of undue political pressure and outvoting that the commission for the selection of a director of the radio could not decide between two candidates, one being from the Serb people, namely Ms. Ms.,
GR1 (Government): and the other one from the Bosniak people.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the commission proposed that the mandate of then acting director of the radio be extended until the final appointment of a director.
GR1 (Government): Although the domestic court found the applicants liable for defamation only on account of passing on false factual allegations in the letters sent to the authorities, one should not disregard the fact that the letter was subsequently published in the media as well.
GR1 (Government): In the letter, applicants clearly stressed as follows.
GR1 (Government): In the absence of any action on your part, we will be forced to contact the media, as well as the other competent national and international bodies.
GR1 (Government): This evidently indicates that the applicant's letter was indeed intended for general publication.
GR1 (Government): The publication of the letter in a daily newspaper evidently aggravated the harm to the reputation of Ms. Ms.
GR1 (Government): It is not difficult to imagine how Ms. Ms. must have felt when false information
GR1 (Government): about her conduct and actions leaked to the public, the false information whose contents are offensive to all her friends, neighbors, and co-workers who are members of Bosniak people in the multi-ethnic community of Vrčko district of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
GR1 (Government): In relation to this, we recall the case of Lesnik versus Slovakia, which also concerned freedom of expression.
GR1 (Government): In this case, an individual who made defamatory statements about a public prosecutor was convicted in a criminal trial.
GR1 (Government): In this case, the applicant Lesnik did not publish the letter himself, but it was done by a third person.
GR1 (Government): Nevertheless, the court noted the importance of the fact that the letter had been published whereby the harm to the aggrieved person had been aggravated.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, in Lesnik versus Slovakia, the sanction imposed on the applicant, four months imprisonment suspended for a probationary period of one year, is far more severe than the one imposed on the applicants in the present case.
GR1 (Government): However, despite the criminal conviction and rather severe sanction imposed on the applicant in the Lesnik case, the court found no violation of Article 10 of the convention.
GR1 (Government): In the present case, the court ordered the applicants, four applicants, to either retract the letter or pay the amount of approximately 1,300 euros for defamatory statements they made.
GR1 (Government): Unlike the criminal sanction imposed in the Lesnik case, these alternative orders constitute a merely symbolic satisfaction for the mental anguish of Ms.
GR1 (Government): Ms. caused by the defamation.
GR1 (Government): Despite the fact that they failed to prove the truthfulness of their allegations, the applicants did not retract the impugned letter, although they had been given this option instead of payment of the awarded amount.
GR1 (Government): The responded party fully supports the applicants' argument that the possibility for citizens to address the competent authorities and bring to their attention potentially unlawful or inappropriate conduct of public servants should be protected.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, it is citizens' duty to act in this manner, and it should be encouraged as such.
GR1 (Government): What is disputable and unacceptable in the present case, however, is the fact that the applicants made very serious accusations against the public servants without even trying to verify them beforehand.
GR1 (Government): Such a conduct shows the lack of social responsibility.
GR1 (Government): We also recall that the court, in its case law, frequently noted that civil servants must enjoy public confidence in conditions free of undue perturbation if they are to be successful in performing their tasks, and it may therefore prove necessary to protect them from offensive and abusive verbal attacks when on duty.
GR1 (Government): Building of public confidence in the institutions and public servants working in them is of particular importance in a multi-ethnic post-conflict society like that of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
GR1 (Government): For the purpose of building and preserving mutual trust, all citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina should refrain from negligent and notably from intentional presentation of unverified or false information, especially those relating to ethnic and or religious affiliation.
GR1 (Government): The applicants cannot enjoy absolute protection of their freedom of expression only because they intended to inform the authorities of the alleged unlawful or inappropriate conduct of a public servant.
GR1 (Government): It was their duty and responsibility to make a reasonable effort to verify the facts alleged in the letter, which they failed to do so.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, we consider that the chamber of this court properly found that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in the present case.
GR1 (Government): A different decision of this court would deprive the defamation act in Bosnia-Herzegovina of any meaning and effect, while individuals would lose any legal protection of their private life and reputation.
GR1 (Government): A different decision of this court would give protection to negligent dissemination of utterly unverified and false information, jeopardizing the rights of the others, which is certainly not the purpose and the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): Thank you, Mrs. Mora.
GR1 (Government): Thank you, Ms. Usba.
GR1 (Government): Thank you, Mr. Jar life.
GR1 (Government): Thank you, Ms. progression.
GR1 (Government): Thank you, Ms. CONSTANTINE.
GR1 (Government): We have deferred $90 million in unverified information which has served You immune symptoms for the last 60 years.
GR1 (Government): Please remember this monument in our hearts.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Thank you very muc, May I ask the members of the grand chamber to ask questions if they feel it necessary.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Judge Nußberger first.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Thank you very much. I would have a question to the applicants.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): I quote the judgment of the appeal court of 16th May 2005.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): There it's written on the basis, I quote, on the basis of SC's statement, the court establishes that at the meeting that preceded the preparation of the letter, a distinguished member of a defendant had informed those attending the meeting that the plaintiff had given a statement to the newspaper which was identical to the content stated in the letter.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And then it continues, upon a subsequent verification, SC established that such a text had been published, but that the plaintiff had not been the author.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): So here it's just written in the court's judgment, upon a subsequent verification.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): I would like to know when has this subsequent verification taken place?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Was it before the letter was sent to the authorities or was it afterwards?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): If it was afterwards, why was it not done before?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And why was it not, if it was afterwards, why was the letter then not verified as it was known that she was not the author?
András Sajó (JudgeP): Thank you very much.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Next to ask questions is Judge Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Thank you.
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström (Judge): qui rejoint de très près la question qui vient d'être posée et qui s'adresse également aux requérantes.
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström (Judge): Bien évidemment, l'autre partie peut se prononcer si elle a des informations à nous communiquer sur ce sujet.
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström (Judge): Je voudrais en effet savoir à quel moment précis vous avez appris que Mme S. n'était pas l'auteur de l'interview au journal Nînes, le journal serbe Nînes.
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström (Judge): 1re question, le moment précis, je pense que c'est quelque chose d'important dans la compréhension du dossier.
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström (Judge): Et la 2e question qui rejoint aussi la question qui vient d'être posée, lorsque vous l'avez su, lorsque vous l'avez appris, pourquoi n'êtes-vous pas allés immédiatement démentir cette information auprès des autorités, des hautes autorités auprès desquelles elles avaient été dénoncées?
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström (Judge): Voilà, je vous remercie.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Merci. Judge Vehabović, please.
Faris Vehabović (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President.
Faris Vehabović (Judge): I have two questions for the government.
Faris Vehabović (Judge): Did you make any inquiry as to the content of the letter received by the applicant?
Faris Vehabović (Judge): That's the first question.
Faris Vehabović (Judge): And second question, what steps you have taken in order to find out if the content of the letter was disseminated by some body of Brčko district to which letter was addressed, or by its staff?
Faris Vehabović (Judge): Have you performed any internal inquiry as to these circumstances?
Faris Vehabović (Judge): And if yes, then if you could provide us with some piece of evidence, I would appreciate very much.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Thank you Judge Vehabović. Yes, Judge Kūris please.
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): My question goes to the representative of the government.
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): As far as I understood, your position was that before sending a letter, the applicants had to make a reasonable effort to verify the rest of the allegations.
Egidijus Kūris (Judge): Could you please specify what could have been that reasonable effort to be satisfactory and how it could have been made?
András Sajó (JudgeP): I see, yes, Judge Keller, please.
Helen Keller (Judge): I have a small factual question to the applicants.
Helen Keller (Judge): Did you qualify your letter as confidential, either, for example, on the envelope or in the heading of the letter, so that the addressee were fully aware that the content was confidential?
Helen Keller (Judge): Thank you.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Any further questions from the Grand Chamber?
András Sajó (JudgeP): I would like to ask, following the question of Judge Keller, the following.
András Sajó (JudgeP): What are the expectations of privacy of a communication like the present one addressed to official authorities?
András Sajó (JudgeP): So once again, what is expected in the practice of Bosnia-Herzegovina if such a letter is sent?
András Sajó (JudgeP): Is it considered in practice, as a matter of practice, confidential?
András Sajó (JudgeP): Or are there any specific judicial decisions in this regard?
András Sajó (JudgeP): Secondly, again, concerning the legal practice, the representative of the government mentioned that the fact of the publication aggravated the harm to the plaintiff in the domestic proceedings.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Is this a matter that is generally taken into consideration in a board of damages?
András Sajó (JudgeP): Is this a precondition for damages?
András Sajó (JudgeP): And was this a consideration in the present judgment?
András Sajó (JudgeP): On this, I would like to allow you 18 minutes.
András Sajó (JudgeP): We will resume at 10.30.
András Sajó (JudgeP): The hearing is suspended for 18 minutes.
András Sajó (JudgeP): I would like to call the representative of the applicant to answer the questions, please.
AP1 (Applicant): Question number one was asked by Miss Angelica Nisberger.
AP1 (Applicant): The answer is, the lawsuit was filed in May 2003.
AP1 (Applicant): The lawsuit claims that the applicants issued a public statement.
AP1 (Applicant): The contents of the letter were first leaked to the public and then the lawsuit was filed.
AP1 (Applicant): Answer to the question number two, asked by Mr. Andrej Potocki.
AP1 (Applicant): As in line with regulations valid at the time, the mayor, as the head of executive authorities, had the obligation to request the police to verify the claims.
AP1 (Applicant): In fact, the applicants even stated at the end of their letter that they, that should fail to react, end of quote, indicating that they expected the mayor and competent bodies to react.
AP1 (Applicant): Question number three by Egidijus Kuris from Lithuania about qualifying the letter as confidential.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicants did not qualify it explicitly as confidential, but it was clearly stated to whom the letter should be delivered.
AP1 (Applicant): It was mentioned attention off.
AP1 (Applicant): The questions asked by the president, what are the expectations regarding the correspondence in practice of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
AP1 (Applicant): The practice is that the letter is delivered directly to a person with note attention off.
AP1 (Applicant): And such correspondence does not go through protocol room.
AP1 (Applicant): The question number two about the legal practice.
AP1 (Applicant): In this case, Mrs. Zivkovic did not suffer the damage because she did not apply to the
AP1 (Applicant): vacancy notice.
AP1 (Applicant): And this fact was just established before the grand chamber.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Thank you. I call Mrs. Mijić, please.
GR1 (Government): As I recall, the first question was, when did Ms. Enes give this interview?
GR1 (Government): Apparently, she never gave this interview in NIN Weekly magazine.
GR1 (Government): It was established by the court.
GR1 (Government): The legal representative of first applicant was heard before the court.
GR1 (Government): And he, as a witness, he stated before Appellate Court of Burtko District that they subsequently checked this information.
GR1 (Government): And they established that Ms. Enes was not
GR1 (Government): the author of this interview in Weekly magazine.
GR1 (Government): So it was stated by legal representative of the first applicant before Appellate Court of Burtko District.
GR1 (Government): So it was established before the court that Ms. Enes never gave an interview with this content.
GR1 (Government): When it comes to the, I think, first question for the government, I think Judge Viharbovic posed this question about investigation about the content of this letter by authorities.
GR1 (Government): When it comes to this question, I would like to emphasize that neither institution, neither supervisor, international supervisor, neither governor of Burtko District, neither president of the assembly of Burtko District, they are not competent to investigate any complaints concerning selection of the director for public radio.
GR1 (Government): The only body competent to consider and to these kind of complaints is managing board of the radio district Burtko.
GR1 (Government): So these institutions to which the letter has been sent are not competent at all to deal with any complaints concerning any candidate for the position of the public radio.
GR1 (Government): But the content of the letter and the factual allegations made in this letter was considered and was investigated before domestic courts, before Appellate Court of Burtko and also the case was investigated in detail by the constitutional court of Bosnia Herzegovina and constitutional court agreed completely with the findings of Appellate Court of Burtko District.
GR1 (Government): The next question was, what can we accept from the applicant when we say that they should have put in reasonable effort to verify these factual allegations beforehand?
GR1 (Government): The answer is, first of all, they should have conveyed in the letter what they have been told.
GR1 (Government): Just to convey information authentically in the letter.
GR1 (Government): Because applicants allegedly put in the letter information they received from the persons working at the radio.
GR1 (Government): When these persons, employees at public radio were heard before Appellate Court of Burtko, they told the court something different, different information.
GR1 (Government): So it was established before the court that applicants did not convey information they received authentically in the letter.
GR1 (Government): So for the start, the first thing they should have done to convey authentically information they received.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, they should have conveyed the information they received.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, they could have just opened the newspaper weekly magazine in, just to see who is the author of the text.
GR1 (Government): They have done it.
GR1 (Government): But after they sent the letter, and before Appellate Court of Burtko District, they said, well, when we checked the facts, we found that Ms. M.S. was not the author of this interview.
GR1 (Government): They could have done it before they sent the letter.
GR1 (Government): When it comes to the question, what could applicants expect when it comes to confidentiality of the letter, this letter was not confidential.
GR1 (Government): It was sent to public authority.
GR1 (Government): It was not even marked as confidential letter.
GR1 (Government): So they were not able to expect any special confidentiality of this letter.
GR1 (Government): There is a law on confidentiality data in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but this law only applies to the official documents.
GR1 (Government): So when someone sends a letter to public authority, you never know what might happen to this letter.
GR1 (Government): So you cannot expect a strict confidentiality of your correspondence with authorities or with anyone.
GR1 (Government): When it comes to the question whether the fact that the letter was published in the newspaper was taken into consideration when deciding on damages, the amount of damages, yes, this fact that the letter was published in the newspaper was considered.
GR1 (Government): The court took this fact into consideration when deciding on the amount for the non-material damages.
GR1 (Government): But this fact, of course, as I already said, was not taken into consideration when deciding on liability for defamation.
GR1 (Government): So in the domestic court, applicants found liable for defamation only based on the fact that they conveyed, dismissed false information to a third person.
GR1 (Government): A third person can be anybody, institution, other persons.
GR1 (Government): So these are the regulations of the Defamation Act.
GR1 (Government): I hope I answered your question correctly.
András Sajó (JudgeP): We have come to the end of the hearing.
András Sajó (JudgeP): I thank the parties for their submissions and answers to the court's questions.
András Sajó (JudgeP): The court will now deliberate on the merits.
András Sajó (JudgeP): The judgment will be delivered later.
András Sajó (JudgeP): The parties will be informed of the date of delivery.
András Sajó (JudgeP): I declare the hearing closed.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Veuillez vous asseoir.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je déclare ouverte l'audience publique sur la recevabilité et le fonds de l'affaire Parrillo contre l'Italie.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): L'affaire a été introduite devant la Cour le 26 juillet 2011 par une ressortissante italienne, Mme Adelina Parrillo, en vertu de l'article 34 de la Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Elle a été attribuée à la 2e section de la Cour conformément à l'article 52, paragraphe 1 du règlement de la Cour.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): La requête a été communiquée au gouvernement le 28 mai 2013 sous l'angle des articles 8 de la Convention et 1 du protocole numéro 1 de la Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le même jour, la Cour a déclaré irrecevable le grief tiré de l'article 10 de la Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le 28 janvier 2014, une chambre de la 2e section a décidé de se dessaisir au profit de la grande chambre.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Aucune des parties n'a s'étant opposée à ce dessaisissement.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Quatre tierces parties, à savoir le Centre européen pour la justice et les droits de l'homme, les associations Luca Cossioni, Amica Cigogna Onlus, L'Altra Cigogna Onlus et Cerco Un Bimbo agissant conjointement, les associations Vox, Osservatorio Italiano Sui Diritti, SIFES, Society of Fertility, Sterility and Reproductive Medicine et Città Dinanzativa agissant conjointement, ainsi que les associations Movimento per la Vita, Scienza e Vita e Forum delle Associazioni Familiari agissant conjointement, ont soumis des observations écrites en vertu de l'article 44, paragraphe 3 du règlement.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le gouvernement est représenté par sa co-agente, Mme Paola Accardo, assistée de M. Gianluca Mauro Pellegrini,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): co-agent du gouvernement, ainsi que de Mme Assunta Morresi et de Mme Deirdre Fehily, conseillère.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): La requérante est représentée par M. Nicolò Paoletti,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): M. Claudia Sartori,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): M. Natalia Paoletti, conseille,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): assistée de M. Michele De Luca, conseiller.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je salue également le groupe de magistrats et avocats azerbaïdjanais, ainsi que le groupe de juges et membres du greffe de la Cour suprême de la République de Moldova en visite d'études à la Cour.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ayant consulté la co-agente du gouvernement et les représentants de la requérante, j'ai fixé ainsi l'ordre de parole.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Nous entendrons successivement Mme Paola Accardo et Mme Assunta Morresi pour le gouvernement, puis M. Paoletti, M. Natalia Paoletti,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): M. Michele De Luca et M. Claudia Sartori pour la requérante.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): La parole est à Mme Paola Accardo.
GR1 (Government): Merci, Monsieur le Président.
GR1 (Government): Les gouvernements italiens, en adressant la Cour à ses juges ses meilleures salutations et les excuses de l'agent pour son absence, présentent de brèves considérations et la réponse aux questions qu'on récit par lettre le 2 mai 2014.
GR1 (Government): Tout d'abord, les gouvernements italiens désirent confirmer ces observations du 28 mars 2014 aussi bien sur les récivabilités de la requête au sens de l'article 35, paragraphe 1 de la Convention que sur les fonds.
GR1 (Government): Il attire notamment l'attention sur les faits que la requérante a attendu plus de sept ans pour saisir la Cour.
GR1 (Government): Quant au fait que la loi 40 de 2004 l'empêchait de disposer de sang qu'un brione en cryoconservation était entrée en vigueur en mars 2004.
GR1 (Government): Ce fait est pertinent au sens de l'exception faite au sens de l'article 35, paragraphe 1 et suscite des doutes sur l'importance de l'intérêt enjeu pour la requérante.