TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP2 (Applicant): was not in accordance with the law under Article 8.2.
AP2 (Applicant): Domestic law was so vague and unforeseeable that it did not provide any clear grounds for dismissal of the court president.
AP2 (Applicant): The HCJ is authorized to remove judges from administrative posts, including presidents, by Articles 20 and 122 of the law on the judiciary and Articles 27 and 32.1 of the law on the High
AP2 (Applicant): Council of Justice.
AP2 (Applicant): None contains any definition of the grounds for removal, as noted by the Venice Commission.
AP2 (Applicant): The HCJ's regulations provide the only ground of early non-voluntary dismissal of president for violation of official duties.
AP2 (Applicant): There is no definition of this term nor any guidance for it.
AP2 (Applicant): And it is far from clear what misconduct or incompetence is sufficiently serious to justify removal from office.
AP2 (Applicant): Additionally, domestic law provides for judicial self-government by the Council of Judges.
AP2 (Applicant): The Venice Commission has said that the council has very powerful functions, and the scope for internal judicial politics and maneuvering appears tremendous.
AP2 (Applicant): Despite this theoretical self-government, only one member of the panel investigating him was even a member of the Council of Judges.
AP2 (Applicant): He was not given an opportunity to address the report to his court staff or to remedy any failings that may actually have existed.
AP2 (Applicant): There was also no evidence for the HCJ of a complaint against him initiated from within the court.
AP2 (Applicant): Further, dismissal from office was the only sanction which could be imposed on a court president under domestic law.
AP2 (Applicant): This is disproportionate, we say.
AP2 (Applicant): It does not allow the HCJ to consider the gravity of the misconduct or incompetence or to decide an appropriate sanction.
AP2 (Applicant): Finally, the High Administrative Court failed to provide a critical counterbalance to the HCJ's discretion in this case.
AP2 (Applicant): This court has made similar findings in Volkov on a dismissal of a judge for breach of oath, and we submit they apply equally to Mr. Deniso's case.
AP2 (Applicant): In conclusion, Mr. President, we invite the court
AP2 (Applicant): to find violations of Article 6 and 8 and of Article 18 in conjunction with both.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mr. Halban and I thank both parties for their submissions to the court and now I invite my colleagues who wish to do so to put their questions to the parties.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Yes, President Spano please.
Robert Spano (Judge): I have one question to the government and one to the applicant, which are prompted by the pleadings this morning.
Robert Spano (Judge): To the government, I noticed from the observations of the government that on the Article 6 complaint and the merits of the Article 6 complaint dealing with the independence and impartiality of the organs deciding the case at domestic level, we have renditions of reasoning in paragraph 62 to 65, which do not make any reference to a case called Alexander Volkov versus Ukraine.
Robert Spano (Judge): May I ask the government to comment on whether it considers the merits issue under Article 6 to be distinguishable in this case from the case of Alexander Volkov, and then explain, if so, to what extent?
Robert Spano (Judge): So our assessment can be based on that argumentation by the government.
Robert Spano (Judge): To the applicant, I have one question as well.
Robert Spano (Judge): There are basically two core arguments presented by the applicant why there has been an interference with Article 8, why Article 8 is applicable in this case.
Robert Spano (Judge): The first is in paragraph 99 of your observations, which are basically issues going to the damage to the applicant's reputation.
Robert Spano (Judge): And in paragraph 100, there is a reference to financial consequences.
Robert Spano (Judge): I want to turn to the first, the damage to the applicant's reputation.
Robert Spano (Judge): May I ask, because it is not addressed in your written observations, it was not addressed here orally, the court has held that Article 8 cannot be relied upon to complain of a loss of reputation, which is the foreseeable consequence of one's own actions.
Robert Spano (Judge): This has primarily been directed to criminal offenses, but it is not only limited to criminal offenses.
Robert Spano (Judge): May I ask the applicant to comment, why should not the court apply that doctrine on the facts of a case which deals with the underperformance of a civil servant, and thus dismissal being the consequence of that underperformance?
Robert Spano (Judge): Is it the view of the applicant that this part of the court's case law is simply inapplicable in a situation like this, thus being the basis upon which we could not rely upon potential damage to the applicant's reputation?
Robert Spano (Judge): I just want to ask you this, and I want you to put aside, for the sake of argument, the case of Ermeni versus Hungary.
Robert Spano (Judge): Let's assume that Ermeni versus Hungary has not been decided by this court.
Robert Spano (Judge): So don't rely on that case in your answer, but give me your own principled answer to the question.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): And now, Vice President Sicilianos, please.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Je voudrais poser ma question en français, si possible.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Ma question s'adresse au requérant et elle se situe dans le prolongement de la question qui a été posée tout à l'heure par mon collègue, le président Spano.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Elle concerne notamment le paragraphe 100 de vos observations.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Là, il y a une allusion, mais une allusion seulement à des choses que vous avez évoquées aujourd'hui.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Vous dites, les vraies raisons de ma révocation n'étaient pas connues que d'un petit nombre de personnes.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Les vraies raisons.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Mais ces vraies raisons n'ont jamais été évoquées ou en tout cas pas clairement dans vos observations.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Et aujourd'hui, on a entendu une démonstration qui était fondée, entre autres, sur l'article 18 de la Convention, une disposition qui, jusqu'à maintenant, n'a pas été évoquée.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Et on a cru comprendre que votre argumentation tourne essentiellement autour de l'idée suivant laquelle le requérant a été révoqué de ses fonctions dans le contexte d'une certaine persécution politique.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Il y a là un décalage assez évident, me semble-t-il, entre les observations écrites et vos observations orales de tout à l'heure.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Et on aimerait peut-être avoir un peu plus d'éléments sur ce point.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): If there are no more questions, so now the court will withdraw.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Excuse me, sorry.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Judge Kucsko-Stadlmayer, please, you have the floor.
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Judge): Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Judge): My question concerns the applicant and his complaint under Article 8.
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Judge): You mentioned today in your oral pleading for the first time, it was not included in your observation, a letter which was written on the 2nd February 2010 by Mr. Bondik addressed to every judge in Ukraine and which contained accusations against the applicant.
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Judge): Now could you please explain us what exactly was the correlation between this letter from 2010, then the applicant's dismissal from 2011, and his private life under Article 8?
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): So if there are no more questions, the Court will now withdraw for 20 minutes.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): So let's say we will resume at a quarter to 11, following which the parties will be able to submit the brief observations in reply to each other's submissions and reply to questions from the judges.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The hearing is resumed and I call M. Lishchyna, please you have the floor.
GR1 (Government): I will first address the question put to me by the Honorable Court, and then I will move to brief comments to the statements of the applicant. The present case is distinguishable
GR1 (Government): from the case of Alexander Volkov v. Ukraine. First of all, I would refer the Court to paragraph
GR1 (Government): 115-116 of Alexander Volkov, in which the Court described the lack of impartiality of the members of the High Council of Justice, in that two of the members of the High Council of Justice filed the application for dismissal of Mr. Volkov and participated in the consideration
GR1 (Government): of the case. However, in the present case, the High Council of Justice considered the
GR1 (Government): request for dismissal of the case filed by the body of self-government of the judges, namely the Council of Judges of Administrative Courts. Secondly, I would like to refer the
GR1 (Government): fact that the decision in Volkov case was taken by 16 members of the High Council of Justice, of whom only 3 were judges. In the present case, the decision was taken by 19
GR1 (Government): members of the High Council of Justice, of whom 8 were judges. And all 8 judges, members
GR1 (Government): of this body, voted for the dismissal of the applicant from his administrative position.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, I would like to refer the Court to paragraphs 119-122 of the judgment in the Alexander Volkov case, in which the Court describes in negative terms the interference of the Parliament, first Parliamentary Committee and then the session of Parliament, into the procedure of the dismissal of the judge. In the particular case, the decision was taken
GR1 (Government): only by the High Council of Justice. No political involvement was present in the present case.
GR1 (Government): Next, insofar as the applicant's observations of today are concerned, I would like to emphasize that the present case is different from Volkov case. Namely, the decision to dismiss the
GR1 (Government): applicant was initiated by the self-government body of the judges. We cannot say that it
GR1 (Government): was a political decision taken solely by the political party. Of course, as a member of
GR1 (Government): the now ruling government and at the time opposition party, it is difficult for me to corroborate the decisions taken at that time. However, I would like to emphasize that the
GR1 (Government): initiative for dismissal of the applicant from the management position in the Court was that of the self-government body of the judges. Moreover, the applicant had at his
GR1 (Government): disposal a remedy which he didn't use. Namely, he was free to challenge this decision before
GR1 (Government): the Conference of Judges of Ukraine. Albeit, of course, this is also not a judicial body
GR1 (Government): per se, it was still a remedy which he could use with respect to the certificate issued by the special group which considered the organization of the administrative court of appeal, Kiev Administrative Court of Appeal. With respect to the alleged political pressure
GR1 (Government): on the applicant, I would like to emphasize that, first of all, none of those statements which the applicant currently makes before the Honorable Court right now were a part of his application to the higher administrative court when he challenged the decision of the higher council of justice. There is no reference whatsoever to any alleged political pressure
GR1 (Government): against him. The only possible reference is his controversy with the then president of
GR1 (Government): the higher administrative court of Ukraine. But, interestingly, that reference is not
GR1 (Government): reflected in his application before the European Court of Human Rights. Secondly, the alleged
GR1 (Government): pressure is mostly based on the applicant's own statements which are not corroborated by any documents about his personal conversations with various members of the higher council of justice. None of those were tested in either criminal, administrative, or civil proceedings.
GR1 (Government): The applicant was free to file any kind of libel procedure in Ukraine, claiming any kind of compensation for violation of his rights as a judge or with respect to his professional integrity. Finally, I would like to underline that it is unclear how the applicant structures
GR1 (Government): his claim about violation of Article 8. If we would consider the question of the applicant's
GR1 (Government): removal from the post, it has nothing to do with his professionalism. He remained a judge
GR1 (Government): in that same court. He was allowed to continue to exercise his profession, a lawyer. There
GR1 (Government): is nothing in the decision about his professionalism, only about his abilities as a manager. That's
GR1 (Government): it. That is why I do not believe that there is a significant issue under Article 8 of
GR1 (Government): the case. With respect to Article 18, I would mainly defer to the court with this issue.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you, thank you very much Mr. Lishchyna.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): And now Mrs. Gavron please.
AP1 (Applicant): If I can firstly turn to the question by Judge Spano.
AP1 (Applicant): We submit that the exclusion of Article 8, when damage to reputation is a foreseeable consequence of one's own actions, is simply not applicable here.
AP1 (Applicant): The alleged evidence of Mr. Denisov's underperformance
AP1 (Applicant): in the report of the Council of Judges was not tested in any of the dismissal hearings or appeals.
AP1 (Applicant): And therefore, we say it cannot be properly considered.
AP1 (Applicant): The reason for his dismissal.
AP1 (Applicant): We can't challenge the whole 84 pages of that report.
AP1 (Applicant): But I will just give the court two examples of the generalized, selective, and inaccurate nature of that report.
AP1 (Applicant): First, the case automated system, which Mr. Denisov came under a lot of criticism
AP1 (Applicant): for not correctly establishing in his court.
AP1 (Applicant): It's notable that actually this was part of the responsibility of Mr. Bondik.
AP1 (Applicant): He, on the 20th of October 2009, submitted a draft law in which he suggested postponing the implementation and commencement of this system until January 2011 on the basis of Ukrainian budgetary constraints.
AP1 (Applicant): There simply wasn't the money to give the courts to make it work.
AP1 (Applicant): Furthermore, the management of this system is the responsibility of the court manager, the chief of staff of the court.
AP1 (Applicant): Secondly, the formation of specialized chambers.
AP1 (Applicant): Again, he came under a lot of criticism for this in the report.
AP1 (Applicant): This was a discretionary power under Article 26 of the law of the judiciary and status of judges.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. Denisov consulted the judges at the court.
AP1 (Applicant): Since 90% of their cases are social security cases, it was simply impracticable.
AP1 (Applicant): And as we understand it, chambers have never been established at that court today.
AP1 (Applicant): And we would, in any event, distinguish the facts of this case from many in that Mr. Denisov raised Article 8
AP1 (Applicant): on his own motion.
AP1 (Applicant): Reputational damage far exceeded any evident in many.
AP1 (Applicant): And we would urge this court to consider this case on its specific facts, including the entire context of the case.
AP1 (Applicant): With respect to Judge Sicilianos' question, the political harassment in this case was clear, we say, in Mr. Denisov's application
AP1 (Applicant): and extensively relied on in the observations under Article 6 and 18.
AP1 (Applicant): And of course, it's not new evidence.
AP1 (Applicant): We say, of course, it should be taken into consideration in considering Article 8.
AP1 (Applicant): And partly the same point to Judge Kuzco-Stadlmayr.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. Bondyk's letter to all the judges of Ukraine,
AP1 (Applicant): unfortunately, at the time of our written submissions, we didn't have a translation of that.
AP1 (Applicant): So otherwise, we would have included it.
AP1 (Applicant): And we're now referring to it.
AP1 (Applicant): We submit that the interference in this case arises from the dismissal and the reputational damage to Mr. Denisov under Article 8.
AP1 (Applicant): And to limit considerations to simply the two hearings is an ignore the clear culmination of the determination of members of the governing party, including primarily the Minister of Justice, is simply to ignore the fact that they clearly intended damage and to get rid of Mr. Denisov.
AP1 (Applicant): And that has to be taken into consideration in our submissions.
AP1 (Applicant): The context of this case, the entire context, is relevant for the consideration of Article 8.
AP1 (Applicant): And I had one or two points as a result of my colleagues' points.
AP1 (Applicant): Obviously, we say that in terms of the impartiality and independence of the tribunals in this case, the merits in Volkov apply absolutely.
AP1 (Applicant): As far as the initiative coming for the dismissal from the self-government of judges, again, we say it has to be taken into consideration that, for instance, Mr. Portnov, deputy chief of staff
AP1 (Applicant): to the president, three weeks earlier, had threatened to have that very council of judges dismiss Mr. Denisov.
AP1 (Applicant): This should not be ignored when considering the council of judges suddenly focusing on the work of the Kiev Administrative Court, the haste with which that report was sent through the proceedings, and the haste with which Mr. Denisov
AP1 (Applicant): was dismissed in his absence.
AP1 (Applicant): The whole totality has to be considered, even under Article 8 in our submissions.
AP1 (Applicant): In terms of the libel point, the defamation, we do say that letter was defamatory.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. Denisov did ask Parliament to correct those allegations
AP1 (Applicant): as the disseminator of the untruthful allegations, and they refused.
AP1 (Applicant): It was, in practice, we submit, impossible for him to challenge Mr. Bondick at the time.
AP1 (Applicant): It was written in his capacity as MP, and we've heard Minister of Justice sent from Parliament.
AP1 (Applicant): He had, Mr. Bondick had already submitted a breach of oath
AP1 (Applicant): against him, petition against him.
AP1 (Applicant): He had power over him through the HCJ, which was already putting huge pressure on him.
AP1 (Applicant): And his authority continued, even after he was dismissed as president and as judge.
AP1 (Applicant): We also submit that, constitutionally, judges should not have to take proceedings to protect their professional reputation.
AP1 (Applicant): It is up to the government to protect the reputation and the authority of the judiciary, specifically confirmed by Article 10.2 of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): And therefore, we say, in this case, it was the very body charged with protecting the reputation of Mr. Denisov that was, in fact,
AP1 (Applicant): undermining it, and he had no recourse.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mrs. Gavron.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I don't know whether Mr. Halban wishes to...
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): No? Okay.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): So, we have now come to the end of the hearing, and I thank the parties for their submissions and answers to the court's questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Jeunesse against the Netherlands.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The case was lodged on the 1st of March, 2010, with the court under Article 34 of the Convention by Surinamese national Miss Meriam Margriet Jeunesse.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The application was allocated to a chamber of the third section of the court, pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the rules of the court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): It was communicated to the government on the 10th of May, 2011, and declared partly admissible on the 4th of December, 2012.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 14th of May, 2013, the chamber decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favor of the grand chamber, none of the parties having objected to the relinquishment.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 26th of August, 2013, the president of the grand chamber granted leave to the Immigration Council of Ireland and to Defense for Children International to submit written comments as a third party by virtue of Rule 44, Paragraph 3 of the rules of courts.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The government, represented by their deputy agent, Miss Liselot Egmond of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, assisted by Miss Clarinda Coert of the Ministry of Security and Justice, and by Miss Loes Hansen and Miss Nicole Jansen of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Miss Gerda Later, assisted by Mr. Albert Jan Eertink, and Miss Maria Inês Marchese,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I welcome the representatives of the parties and the applicant in the name of the court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I also welcome a delegation of judges from the Latvian Supreme Court, another group of visiting Latvian judges from city and regional courts, and a group of visiting trainee judges of the Serbian Judicial Academy.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Miss Later for the applicant will speak first, and then Miss Egmond for the government.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpretation between the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpretation to Serbian has been authorized for the benefit of a group from the Judicial Academy of Serbia, who are on a study visit to the court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): That interpretation has not been arranged by the court, and no transcription of the oral translation will be included in the official record of the proceedings.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Miss Later.
AP1 (Applicant): Honorable Court, I first want to thank the Immigrant Council of Ireland and Defense for Children for their very important interventions in this case.
AP1 (Applicant): Their interventions make clear to our opinion what is missing in the policy in the Netherlands and in the arguments of the government in this case.
AP1 (Applicant): Mrs. Jornet, here present, was born on 19 October,
AP1 (Applicant): 1967 in Suriname as a Dutch citizen with a Dutch nationality since Suriname was a Dutch colony.
AP1 (Applicant): After the takeover in 75, the persons born in Suriname were in the Netherlands kept their Dutch nationality.
AP1 (Applicant): The persons being in Suriname lost their Dutch nationality.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant stayed in Suriname.
AP1 (Applicant): In 87, she met her husband, now husband, Mr. Walden.
AP1 (Applicant): And shortly after that, they stayed together very often in the house of her mother, who was seriously ill, and in the house of his grandfather.
AP1 (Applicant): After Mrs. Jornet's mother died in 89,
AP1 (Applicant): she moved to his grandfather's house.
AP1 (Applicant): They both applied in 91 for a holiday visa for the Netherlands.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. Walden's application was granted.
AP1 (Applicant): Mrs. Jornet's application was denied.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. Walden left on 19 October, 91,
AP1 (Applicant): to his Dutch father in the Netherlands.
AP1 (Applicant): And he regained his Dutch nationality in 93.
AP1 (Applicant): Mrs. Jornet stayed with his grandfather until he died
AP1 (Applicant): and stayed with his family until finally a visa was granted in 97.
AP1 (Applicant): On 25 June, 99, they married.
AP1 (Applicant): And in the years following, as you know, three Dutch sons were born, age at this moment, as is known, 13, nearly eight, and nearly three.
AP1 (Applicant): In 97, a foreigner in the Netherlands could receive a residence permit without a professional resident visa if all the conditions were met.
AP1 (Applicant): And Mr. Walden was working for an agency since 93