TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): Mr. Marjanović never proved the complaints made in this action as regards Mr. Ružić
GR1 (Government): because the action was subsequently withdrawn for the reasons unknown to the government.
GR1 (Government): We think that actually the representative, that Mrs. Čapko, withdrawn this application
GR1 (Government): if I'm not mistaken.
GR1 (Government): As regards fourth question addressed by Judge Vihavović.
GR1 (Government): Yes, as the applicant's representative today also said, lawyer Ružić, before he became a lawyer, when he was a head of the police district, was well known in Rijeka.
GR1 (Government): Rijeka is a town of 300 inhabitants and he was a public person, so especially he was known to those who came to police station quite often.
GR1 (Government): As regards fifth question and the difference between the Court of Criminal Procedure and the Police Act that deals with bringing a person to the police station and questioning a person.
GR1 (Government): Actually we would like to say that provisions about bringing a person to police station does not apply to the question of the suspect.
GR1 (Government): And they are prescribed by the Police Act.
GR1 (Government): And by this Police Act it is prescribed that suspects cannot be brought to the police station between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. exactly for the reason that the family or the neighbors of
GR1 (Government): the person who is to be brought to the police station will not be disturbed during the night unless it is absolutely necessary.
GR1 (Government): As I said, this provision does not apply to the crim investigation over the person which is already brought to the police station before 10 p.m.
GR1 (Government): That was the case with the applicant.
GR1 (Government): When we are talking about the questioning of a suspect, the provisions of Court of Criminal Procedure apply.
GR1 (Government): And by provisions, these provisions does not prescribe any time limit in which the questioning should be done, nor the time when the questioning can start.
GR1 (Government): I hope I answered your question, Maris.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So do you want to add something?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Sorry, do you want to add something?
GR3 (Government): No, we would like to answer following questions, 6, 7, 8.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): OK, please, go on.
GR3 (Government): Well, in respect of the questions made by Judge Zupancic, I would like to answer that the Constitutional Court brought unanimous decision in this case.
GR3 (Government): And that, as said by the Applicant's Council, if the court finds violation in this case, according to the provisions of CCP, the case would be open for a retrial.
GR3 (Government): And the statement given, if the court establishes that the statement given to the police by the applicant is even valid evidence, the new indictment will be filed based on other evidence collected irrespective of the statement given to the police.
GR3 (Government): And the new trial will be following afterwards.
GR2 (Government): I would like to take the question of the Honorable Judge Hirvella about the laws on duty as prescribed in the Article 177, Paragraph 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
GR2 (Government): This article prescribed that there will be a list of laws on duty.
GR2 (Government): The purpose of such a list was to provide information which lawyers on which day and time would be on duty.
GR2 (Government): If they were on duty, they had to be available to come to the police station if they were called.
GR2 (Government): As the Applicant's Council already confirmed, these are not legal aid lawyers.
GR2 (Government): These are privately hired lawyers.
GR2 (Government): So, Mirko Ružić could have charged the applicant for his services, and the government has no information whether he charged him, considering this is a private relationship between the lawyer and the client.
GR2 (Government): And for that matter, we don't have the information whether Goran Marjanović also charged the applicant for his subsequent services when he represented.
GR3 (Government): And finally, to answer the court's last question, whether Mirko Ružić was dismissed from the police and when, the government would like to clear this up with the document, if needed, we will provide it to the court's case file, that Mirko Ružić was the police, working at the police from 19th of July, 1993, and on 1st of August, 1997, he became head of police district, Primorsko-Goransko, that is the Rijeka County district, and his position, he was dismissed from this position on 7th of March, 2000.
GR3 (Government): He used his yearly leave, and he finally was dismissed on 26th of May, 2000, from the police station.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you. Do you want to make closing remarks or have you finished?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Yes, finished. Thank you very much.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Delphi against Estonia.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on the 4th of December 2009 under Article 34 of the Convention by Delphi AS, a public limited liability company registered in Estonia.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 10th of October 2013, the chamber of the first section delivered its judgment on admissibility and merits of the case, finding that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 8th of January 2014, the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on the 17th of February 2014.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The following organizations were granted leave to submit written comments as third parties by virtue of Rule 44, paragraph 3 of the Rules of Court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Access, Article 19, the European Digital Media Association, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, and the Pan-European Association of European Internet Services Providers Associations acting jointly.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The European Information Society Institute, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Media Legal Defense Initiative acting together with its 28 associated organizations.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The defending government are represented by their agent, Ms. Maris Kuurberg, assisted by Ms. Meeli Kaur and Ms. Käti
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mägi, advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The applicant company is represented by Ms. Karmen Turk
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and Mr. Villu Otsmann, attorneys at Law Council.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I also welcome a delegation of Serbian judges and judges assistants, a delegation of the judges and court advisors from the Constitutional Court of Montenegro, and a delegation from the Turkish High Council of Judges and Prosecutors who attend the hearing today.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Otsmann and Ms. Turk for the applicant company
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): will speak first, and then Mrs. Kuurberg for the government.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting into Serbian and Turkish has been authorized for the benefit of the respective delegations attending the hearing.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Mr. Otsmann.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, members of the Grand Chamber, good morning.
AP2 (Applicant): As a representative of the applicant, I'll give a short summary of the facts, answering also the court's written questions regards to the facts.
AP2 (Applicant): And then I'll emphasize three main arguments to be considered in the current case.
AP2 (Applicant): After that, my colleague will present more detailed legal analysis of the case and answer the rest of the court's written questions for the hearing.
AP2 (Applicant): I'll now address most relevant facts.
AP2 (Applicant): The applicant is a company listed on local stock exchange and operating a news portal where journalists working for the applicant publish news and articles.
AP2 (Applicant): If the readers of an article click a button below it, they will be taken to the comments platform.
AP2 (Applicant): Anyone who uses the internet can post a comment, and the comment will automatically appear on this page.
AP2 (Applicant): These comments can be read by everyone who uses the internet.
AP2 (Applicant): The applicant has various safeguards in place.
AP2 (Applicant): Firstly, there is an early stakedown system.
AP2 (Applicant): The user, including the author himself, can rate the comment by clicking the inappropriate button.
AP2 (Applicant): And the comment will be instantly reviewed and, if necessary, removed.
AP2 (Applicant): There is also a filtering system for indecent stems of words that automatically prevents the appearance of the inappropriate comments.
AP2 (Applicant): The published article in the current case was, as common practice in 2006, a summary of another portal's article and addressed a matter of public interest.
AP2 (Applicant): It was about a publicly financed shipping company destroying a public ice road between the mainland and an island.
AP2 (Applicant): There is no dispute that the article itself was balanced and correspondent to the demands of journalistic ethics.
AP2 (Applicant): The article attracted around 200 comments.
AP2 (Applicant): No one had clicked the button to point out any comments as being inappropriate.
AP2 (Applicant): Six weeks after the article was published, the owner of the shipping company submitted a claim to the applicant that 20 comments were damaging his reputation.
AP2 (Applicant): The applicant removed those comments immediately.
AP2 (Applicant): Nevertheless, the owner of the shipping company continued to claim damages from the applicant.
AP2 (Applicant): The fundamentals of daily operation of the portal since 2006 have been mostly the same.
AP2 (Applicant): However, the comments platform is now divided in two.
AP2 (Applicant): There is a primary section for registered users' comments, and an additional click away is a part for anonymous comments.
AP2 (Applicant): The registration of users is not by their real names, but by pseudonyms.
AP2 (Applicant): Now, the applicable principles of law will be addressed, and I will focus on three basic arguments.
AP2 (Applicant): The first argument, in order to preserve the balance between basic principles of law, such as freedom of speech and others, in the context of the new technological solutions, such as the internet and the comment platform, the legal concept publisher has to be carefully considered.
AP2 (Applicant): Otherwise, the law, as a conservative tool, will restrict society from the benefits of these technological solutions.
AP2 (Applicant): There is no doubt that the internet and the comment platform are technological solutions which give freedom of speech a totally new dimension.
AP2 (Applicant): Anyone on the internet can read daily news, and notably, everybody can discuss and debate these news with everybody online and interactively by posting comments.
AP2 (Applicant): The latter was not possible in the so-called classical media.
AP2 (Applicant): The difference is in the resources of the marketplace for ideas and opinions.
AP2 (Applicant): In the classical media, these resources were limited, and the publisher had to make a choice what to publish.
AP2 (Applicant): In the news portals on the comment platform, these resources are unlimited, and everybody can make a choice by themselves.
AP2 (Applicant): If the law is to interpret it as it was done by the first section's decision, then the news portals will be obliged to make a choice for the users of the comment platform.
AP2 (Applicant): Consequently, the internet media will be turned back into classical media, and society will not benefit from the unlimited resource of publishing.
AP2 (Applicant): Thus, the balance will be disturbed.
AP2 (Applicant): This careful consideration of the legal concept of the publisher in order to keep balance has laid down in the Councils of Europe 11th Declaration and European Union's e-commerce directive.
AP2 (Applicant): Both of them prohibit the general obligation to monitor accessible content and hold the service providers co-responsible only if they do not act expeditiously as soon as they gain knowledge of the legal content.
AP2 (Applicant): In the current case, the applicant followed all these requirements.
AP2 (Applicant): The second argument.
AP2 (Applicant): Editorial control itself is not mandatory for freedom of speech in the context of the public debate.
AP2 (Applicant): It is true that editorial control has been with us forever, but this has been a result of the limited resources of publishing, not the rule of law.
AP2 (Applicant): Nowadays, the circumstances have changed since the classical media has been replaced by the resources of the unlimited marketplace for opinions and ideas.
AP2 (Applicant): The news production and the operation of the comment platform are separate services of the same entity.
AP2 (Applicant): It is clear that the first puts into effect the freedom of speech of the applicant, and the second that's of the users.
AP2 (Applicant): In the second, the applicant just provides a technical solution for the users to express themselves.
AP2 (Applicant): Thus, the applicant is, in this regard, an intermediary.
AP2 (Applicant): All relevant principles shall apply.
AP2 (Applicant): The convention does not require that every publicly imparted speech has to be edited by journalists.
AP2 (Applicant): Nowadays, it is more possible than ever to reduce the media monopoly and let every person speak.
AP2 (Applicant): This is the true purpose of freedom of speech.
AP2 (Applicant): The lack of editorial control, however, is balanced by very easy correction.
AP2 (Applicant): Just click, and the comment will be removed.
AP2 (Applicant): It means that the responsibility of the publisher is postponed until the news portal is aware of the legal content.
AP2 (Applicant): And this awareness, it also corresponds to the principles of general civil law.
AP2 (Applicant): If news portals are a priori co-responsible for the content of the comment platform, it is self-evident that the news portals will try to minimize the risks and will be very cautious of producing news regarding controversial subjects in society and allowing critical comments.
AP2 (Applicant): The effect is chilling the public debate.
AP2 (Applicant): The third argument.
AP2 (Applicant): One of the foundations of freedom of speech is to allow self-regulation in society.
AP2 (Applicant): Interference must be an exception provided for by law.
AP2 (Applicant): In a democratic society, liberties are mainly negative in nature.
AP2 (Applicant): And the positive liberty is an exception.
AP2 (Applicant): By negative liberty, I mean that every member of society has a choice to abuse his liberties, take the consequences, and correct his behavior.
AP2 (Applicant): The obligation of the news portal to interfere with users' comments in order to avoid third-person damages leads to a positive liberty, where the user is free to express only the right opinion.
AP2 (Applicant): In order for this kind of exception to exist, it would have to be clearly spelled out in the law.
AP2 (Applicant): The Gaussian declaration, principle six, stipulates that when defining the obligations of service providers, where their functions are wider and they store content emanating from other parties, due care must be taken to respect the freedom of expression of those who made the information available in the first place.
AP2 (Applicant): According to the applicant's opinion, this gives news portals the certainty that any obligation for them as operators of the comment platforms would have to be expressis verbis, written into relevant domestic law, and thus be foreseeable.
AP2 (Applicant): There is no relevant law in Estonia in the current case.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you Mr. Otsmann, Mr. Turk.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President Spillman, honorable members of the Grand Chamber,
AP1 (Applicant): my name is Carmen Turck, attorney representing the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): I shall take over from my good colleague, Mr. Will Watsman, now.
AP1 (Applicant): This case is about what kind of internet we want to leave behind to the next generation.
AP1 (Applicant): To give you an overview of the next 20 minutes, I outline it.
AP1 (Applicant): In the first part, I shall go through the main arguments of the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): However, where appropriate, I will reply to the court's written questions and entwine arguments from third party interveners, namely from Article 19 Media Legal Defense Initiative, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Access Now, European Digital Media Association, CCIA, and EuroISPA.
AP1 (Applicant): The second part of my speech is dedicated to the applicant's counter arguments to the government's memorial.
AP1 (Applicant): Now, to the first part of my speech, the applicant's position.
AP1 (Applicant): I have structured this part by following the general structure of the court's usual legal analysis.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, by stating shortly the applicable law, I apply it to the present case by firstly submitting that this obligation for the comments platform operator to ensure that no one's rights are infringed is not prescribed by law.
AP1 (Applicant): And secondly, by putting forth the applicant's understanding that no such obligation would be proportionate nor necessary in a democratic society.
AP1 (Applicant): So to give my speech context and also to answer the court's written questions about the law, I named the relevant counsel and EU jurisprudence.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant believes that relevant applicable law formula act declare for qualifying the applicant as an intermediary of third party content and not the classical publisher, the term defined by my colleague a few minutes back.
AP1 (Applicant): Namely, the Council of Europe Declaration on Freedom of Communication on the Internet from 2003 ties the providers of internet services and the Article 10 together, stating that an intermediary could be co-responsible with a user only if it becomes aware of the legal nature of user's content and does not act expeditiously to remove it.
AP1 (Applicant): The same is set forth in the European Union Directive on e-commerce.
AP1 (Applicant): To ensure the overall functioning of the internet, the declaration as well as the directive lay down an essential principle that no state may impose to no host an active obligation to ensure and monitor the content stored.
AP1 (Applicant): Furthermore, the council recommendation on a guide to human rights for internet users sets forth the principle of user's right not to disclose his identity online.
AP1 (Applicant): The same is enshrined in recommendation on a new notion of media calling to ensure that there is no such interference which would risk leading to undue self-restraint and self-censorship.
AP1 (Applicant): I am aware that I am referring to laws applicable to intermediaries.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, one might wonder why is that, since the first section considered the applicant to be a classical publisher of the opinions.
AP1 (Applicant): If that would be true and the applicant would qualify as a classical publisher, not only regarding its articles by journalists, but also regarding comments platform, the applicant would have had no reason to argue against the first section ruling and the Grand Chamber would have had no reason to accept this case for reconsideration.
AP1 (Applicant): As this is relevant to the applicable law, I note that instead of the named rules, the general civil law was applied by the courts and the first section, refrained from reassessment.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant is mindful that states have a wide margin of appreciation in deciding the cases.
AP1 (Applicant): Indeed, qualification of a person under the national laws is the task for a state.
AP1 (Applicant): However, in this case, misqualification unjustly interferes with not only the freedom of expression of the applicant, but the freedom of expression of users.
AP1 (Applicant): That means common men wanting to be involved in a debate on matters of public interest.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, the applicant asked this court to look at the case as a whole and reassess whether the applicant comes under regulation of the classical publisher or intermediary.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant notes that the court's earlier case law supports this approach.
AP1 (Applicant): For example, in case of editorial board of Bravo, Odello, and Stekl versus Ukraine, this court ruled that it is not bound by the domestic court's erroneous interpretation if this would lead to fundamental rights infringement.
AP1 (Applicant): This is true for this case.
AP1 (Applicant): Without this estimation, the starting point for Grand Chamber's analysis would be the national court's manifestly incorrect interpretation of applicable rules of European law.
AP1 (Applicant): This was the applicable law necessary to decide this case.
AP1 (Applicant): From here, I shall go forward to explain why the applicant never has and still does not see that pre-monitoring obligation is prescribed by law.
AP1 (Applicant): Namely, for two reasons.
AP1 (Applicant): Firstly, there is no law prescribing the obligation to prevent that any harm is caused to third parties by comments.
AP1 (Applicant): And secondly, there is a law prescribing the opposite.
AP1 (Applicant): That is, the prohibition of such law.
AP1 (Applicant): It is well-established jurisprudence of the court that the prescribed by law conditions, amongst other, contains a requirement of certainty.
AP1 (Applicant): The principle of certainty demands that the norm cannot be regarded as a law unless it enables one to foresee the consequences which a given action may entail.
AP1 (Applicant): In this case before us, it is clear there exists no clear law that with any certainty demands action from the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): Namely, the general principle in civil law to refrain from harming others cannot and should not be interpreted in opposite way.
AP1 (Applicant): Furthermore, this is precluded due to the fact that all relevant legal acts from Council of Europe to European Union and national laws prescribe clearly that there can never be any obligation for an intermediary to pre-monitor and police content created by third parties.
AP1 (Applicant): As Article 19, Media Legal Defense Initiative, and other friends of this court have put it, qualification of a host of comments platform as an intermediary, and thus granting it benefits of conditional liability exemptions, is a minimum standard acknowledged globally for intermediaries such as social media, picture and video communities, blogs, and news portals with comment platforms.
AP1 (Applicant): However, even if the law, in contrary to applicant's view, is deemed to exist, such interference as developed by first section would not be necessary in a democratic society.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant has two distinct services.
AP1 (Applicant): It is a publisher of its articles, and it is a host to comments to these articles.
AP1 (Applicant): This means two different regimes would need to be applied.
AP1 (Applicant): The fact that hosts might have several different services was foreseen by Council of Europe already in its 2003 declaration that states that the principles for intermediary apply even if its functions are wider than just storing third party content.
AP1 (Applicant): The article itself under this dispute was neutral and balanced one, and the applicant had adopted more than sufficient measures regarding the comments platform.
AP1 (Applicant): As my colleague already explained, there was an automatic filtering system for stems of words, and a notice and take down system in place.
AP1 (Applicant): In addition, traditional email or a phone call was always available.
AP1 (Applicant): Furthermore, in some occasions, the applicant removed inappropriate comments on its own initiative.
AP1 (Applicant): However, these occasions were restricted to two different situations.