zotero-db/translators/HUDOC.js

{
	"translatorID": "d541622d-09c3-4e20-b010-c506b2d01151",
	"label": "HUDOC",
	"creator": "Jonas Skorzak",
	"target": "^https?://hudoc\\.echr\\.coe\\.int",
	"minVersion": "4.0",
	"maxVersion": "",
	"priority": 100,
	"inRepository": true,
	"translatorType": 4,
	"browserSupport": "gcsibv",
	"lastUpdated": "2021-07-19 21:19:21"
}

/*
	***** BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK *****

	Copyright © 2020 JONAS SKORZAK

	This file is part of Zotero.

	Zotero is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
	it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as published by
	the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
	(at your option) any later version.

	Zotero is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
	but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
	MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
	GNU Affero General Public License for more details.

	You should have received a copy of the GNU Affero General Public License
	along with Zotero. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

	***** END LICENSE BLOCK *****
*/

/*
	Key guides for citation:
	- French: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/note_citation_fra.pdf
	- English: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/note_citation_eng.pdf
	- OSCOLA: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/oscola_4th_edn_hart_2012.pdf#page=37&zoom=auto,-270,529
*/

/*

TODO:
- Handle friendly settlements (the addition to the case name)
- Handle more than judgments or decisions (summaries, translations, search results)
- Handle reports
- Handle resolutions and advisory opinions properly (esp. title)
- Handle different types of documents via the API.
- Use keywords for tags
- Use references to create "related" entries if they exist
- Put in short titles

=> All relate to one thing: This translator is currently unable to access the API
to query it for the taxonomies/thesauruses used for decision type ("typedescription"),
decision-making body ("originatingbody"), keywords ("kpthesaurus"), ...
Check compiled.js on the HUDOC website in order to learn how to query these aspects.
Search for "// ###..//sites/echr/echr.js ###"" in compiled.js to find most API fields.
*/

// After removing text(), eslint complains
/* eslint-disable no-undef */

// Scrapes some metadata from the document
// TODO: integrate function into scrape
function scrapeMetaData(doc, detail) { // Only scrapes the header of the main page
	switch (detail) {
		case "appno": return text(doc, "span.column01");
		case "typedescription": return text(doc, "span.column02");
		case "originatingbody": return text(doc, "span.column03");
		case "judgementdate": return text(doc, "span.column04");
		default: return null;
	}
}

// Gets the itemid of the document
function getItemID(url) {
	var urlRegex = /%22itemid%22:\[%22([\d-]*)%22]|\?i=([\d-]*)/i;
	var id = url.match(urlRegex);
	return id[1];
}

// Adds the type of judgment at the end of the name
function getTypeBit(doc, url) { // TODO: Switch to 'url' once we use the API instead
	var description = scrapeMetaData(doc, "typedescription");

	// The logic assumes the user wants French descriptors if they use the French website
	if (url.includes("hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#")) {
		if (description.includes("Arrêt")) {
			if (description.includes("satisfaction équitable") && !description.includes("au principal")) {
				return " (satisfaction équitable)"; // Some papers use "(arrêt satisfaction équitable)"
			}
			if (description.includes("exception préliminaire") || description.includes("incompétence")) {
				return " (exception préliminaire)";
			}

			if (description.includes("radiation du rôle")) return " (radiation)";
			if (description.includes("interprétation"))	return " (interprétation)";
			if (description.includes("révision")) return " (révision)";
		}

		if (description.includes("Décision")) return " (déc.)";
		if (description.includes("Affaire Communiquée")) return " (communiquée)"; // TODO: Rather use abbreviation?
		if (description.includes("Révision")) return " (déc. de révision)"; // TODO: Rather use abbreviation?
	
		return "";

		// return " (" + description.split("(")[0].toLowerCase() + ")";
	}

	if (description.includes("Judgment")) {
		if (description.includes("Just Satisfaction") && !description.includes("Merits")) {
			return " (just satisfaction)";
		}
		if (description.includes("Objection") || description.includes("Jurisdiction")) {
			return " (preliminary objections)";
		}
		// TODO: Distinguish " (friendly settlement)" and " (striking out)"
		// 				Requires a queryMetaData function
		if (description.includes("Struck out")) return " (striking out)";
		if (description.includes("Interpretation"))	return " (interpretation)";
		if (description.includes("Revision")) return " (revision)";

		return "";
	}

	if (description.includes("Decision")) return " (dec.)";
	if (description.includes("Communicated")) return " (communicated)"; // TODO: Rather use abbreviation?
	if (description.includes("Revision")) return " (dec. on revision)"; // TODO: Rather use abbreviation?

	return "";
}

// Downloads the legal summary in HUDOC
function getLegalSummary(item, appno) {
	var appnoString = appno.join(" AND appno:");

	// Save the French version if user visited the French version of the judgment
	var doctypeString = "";
	if (item.language == "fre") {
		doctypeString = "doctype:CLINF";
	}
	else {
		doctypeString = "doctype:CLIN";
	}

	var summaryUrl = "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/query/results?query=contentsitename=ECHR "
						+ appnoString + " AND "
						+ doctypeString + " AND "
						+ "(kpdate=\"" + item.dateDecided + "\")"
						+ "&select=itemid"
						+ "&sort=&start=0&length=500";

	// Request id of legal summary
	ZU.doGet(summaryUrl, function (json) {
		json = JSON.parse(json);

		if (json.resultcount >= 1) {
			var textUrl = "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/html/body?library=ECHR&id="
						+ json.results[0].columns.itemid;

			Zotero.debug("Getting text of legal summary at: " + textUrl);

			// Request text of legal summary
			ZU.doGet(textUrl, function (text) {
				// Remove styles and span tags
				text = text
					.replace(/<style>[\s\S]*<\/style>/g, "")
					.replace(/<\/?span[^>]*>/g, "")
					.replace(/class='s\S+'/g, "");

				item.notes.push({
					note: "<h1> HUDOC Legal Summary </h1> <br/>" + text // H1 necessary, otherwise title is lost
				});

				item.complete();
			});
		}
		else {
			item.complete();
		}
	});
}

// eslint-disable-next-line no-unused-vars: "url  "
function detectWeb(doc, url) {
	// We're waiting until the loading symbol is gone
	Zotero.monitorDOMChanges(doc.querySelector("#notification div"), { attributes: true, attributeFilter: ["style"] });

	var docType = scrapeMetaData(doc, "typedescription");

	if (url.includes("hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#")) {
		// French website
		if ((docType.includes("Arrêt")
			|| docType.includes("Décision")
			|| docType.includes("Avis consultatif")
			// || docType.includes("Res-") // Removed support for resolutions (not a case and requires info scraped from the text)
			|| docType.includes("Affaire Communiquée"))
		// Exclude translations and press releases.
		&& !(text(doc, "title").toLowerCase().includes("translation]") // toLowerCase() is added because "translati o n" is sometimes capitalized
			|| docType.includes("Communiqué de presse")
			|| text(doc, "title").toLowerCase().includes("résumé juridique"))) {
			return "case";
		}
	}
	else if (url.includes("hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#")) {
		// English website (so won't work for Spanish or German)
		if ((docType.includes("Judgment")
			|| docType.includes("Decision")
			|| docType.includes("Advisory Opinion")
			// || docType.includes("Res-") // Removed support for resolutions (not a case and requires info scraped from the text)
			|| docType.includes("Communicated"))
		// Exclude translations and press releases.
		&& !(text(doc, "title").toLowerCase().includes("translation]") // toLow er Case() is added because "translation" is sometimes capitalized
			|| docType.includes("Press Release")
			|| text(doc, "title").toLowerCase().includes("legal summary"))) {
			return "case";
		}
	}


	return false;
}

function doWeb(doc, url) {
	if (detectWeb(doc, url) == "case") {
		scrapeDecision(doc, url);
	}
}

function scrapeDecision(doc, url) { // Works for both Court judgments and decisions
	// Item type: case
	var item = new Zotero.Item("case");

	// Title
	// FIXME: Abbreviations in the form of A.B.C. or N.A.T.O are capitalized like A.b.c or N.a.t.o. That is a problem in capitalizeText()
	
	var capTitle = ZU.capitalizeTitle(text(doc, "title").toLowerCase(), true);

	var splitTitle = capTitle.split(/\(/);

	// If title already contains the type, remove it.
	// Exclude non-split titles and advisory opinions
	if (!(splitTitle.length == 1)
			&&	!(scrapeMetaData(doc, "typedescription").includes("Advisory Opinion")
				|| scrapeMetaData(doc, "typedescription").includes("Avis consultatif"))) {
		// Find right cut-off point: Either the part that contains the v./c. or the part that contains the number of the case
		let titleVersusMatch = splitTitle.findIndex(function (elem) {
			if (elem.includes("V.") || elem.includes("C.")) {
				return true;
			}
			return false;
		});

		let titleNumMatch = splitTitle.findIndex(function (elem) {
			if (/^((No\.|N°)|(II|III|IV|V|VI|VII|VIII|IX|X)\))/i.test(elem)) {
				return true;
			}
			return false;
		});

		let titleIndex = Math.max(titleVersusMatch, titleNumMatch);
		capTitle = splitTitle.slice(0, titleIndex + 1).join("(");
	}

	// Zotero capitalizes the "v."/"c.", so we need to correct that for English and French cases
	if (capTitle.includes(" V. ")) {
		capTitle = capTitle.replace(" V. ", " v. ");
	}
	else if (capTitle.includes(" C. ")) {
		capTitle = capTitle.replace(" C. ", " c. ");
	}
	item.caseName = capTitle + getTypeBit(doc, url);

	// Court
	var court = scrapeMetaData(doc, "originatingbody");

	if (url.includes("hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#")) {
		if (text(doc, "title").includes("Avis consultatif")) {
			item.court = "ECtHR [GC]";
		}
		else if (court.includes("Grande Chambre")) {
			item.court = "ECtHR [GC]";
		}
		else if (court.includes("Commission")) {
			item.court = "EComHR"; // TODO: Since the Commission is defunct, should the full title maybe be used instead?
		}
		else if (court == "Comité des Ministres") { // For resolutions (which are currently not supported)
			item.court = "Comité des Ministres";
		}
		else {
			item.court = "ECtHR";
		}
	}
	/* eslint-disable no-lonely-if */
	else {
		if (text(doc, "title").includes("Advisory Opinion")) {
			item.court = "ECtHR [GC]";
		}
		else if (court.includes("Grand Chamber")) {
			item.court = "ECtHR [GC]";
		}
		else if (court.includes("Commission")) {
			item.court = "EComHR"; // TODO: Since the Commission is defunct, should the full title maybe be used instead?
		}
		else if (court == "Committee of Ministers") { // For resolutions (which are currently not supported)
			item.court = "Committee of Ministers";
		}
		else {
			item.court = "ECtHR";
		}
	/* eslint-enable no-lonely-if */
	}

	// Date of decision
	// convert to simple ISO: yyyy-mm-dd dd.mm.yyyy.
	item.dateDecided = scrapeMetaData(doc, "judgementdate").split("/")
		.reverse()
		.join('-');

	// URL
	if (url.includes("hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#")) {
		item.url = "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=" + getItemID(url);
	}
	else {
		item.url = "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=" + getItemID(url);
	}
	

	// Query remaining metadata from API
	var queryUrl = "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/query/results?query=(contentsitename=ECHR) AND "
					+ getItemID(url)
					+ "&select=appno,conclusion,docname,languageisocode" // Adapt based on what is needed
					+ "&sort=&start=0&length=1";

	ZU.doGet(queryUrl, function (json) {
		json = JSON.parse(json).results[0].columns;

		Zotero.debug("Queried HUDOC API at: " + queryUrl);

		// Docket number

		// NOTE: This translator doesn't add "app. no.". (See commit history for alternative)
		// Some styles add "no." (Chicago), while other styles don't add anything (OSCOLA, APA)
		// However, most citation style guides require adding the numbering system to the docket number ("app. no."/"no."),
		// so users may need to correct their fields, depending on the style used.
		
		// TODO: For advisory opinions, scrape the number from the text

		var appno = json.appno.split(";");
		item.docketNumber = appno.join(", ");

		// Abstract
		item.abstractNote = json.conclusion.replace(/;/g, "; ");

		// Language
		item.language = json.languageisocode.toLowerCase();

		// Download PDF
		var docname = json.docname;

		var pdfurl = "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/pdf?library=ECHR&id="
					+ getItemID(url) + "&filename=" + encodeURIComponent(docname) + ".pdf";

		// pdfurl = encodeURI(pdfurl); // the "docname" may contain chars not part of the URI schema

		Zotero.debug("Getting PDF at: " + pdfurl);

		item.attachments.push({
			title: "HUDOC Full Text PDF",
			mimeType: "application/pdf",
			url: pdfurl
		});

		// Download Legal Summary
		if (appno.length !== 0) { // without app. nos. we can't find a legal summary
			getLegalSummary(item, appno);
		}
		else {
			item.complete();
		}
	});
}

/** BEGIN TEST CASES **/
var testCases = [
	{
		"type": "web",
		"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22varnava%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-94162%22]}",
		"defer": true,
		"items": [
			{
				"itemType": "case",
				"caseName": "Varnava and Others v. Turkey",
				"creators": [],
				"dateDecided": "2009-09-18",
				"abstractNote": "Preliminary objections dismissed (substantially the same, disappearance of object of proceedings, ratione temporis, six month period); Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect); Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect); Violation of Art. 5; No violation of Art. 5; Non-pecuniary damage - award",
				"court": "ECtHR [GC]",
				"docketNumber": "16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90, 16073/90",
				"language": "eng",
				"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-94162",
				"attachments": [
					{
						"title": "HUDOC Full Text PDF",
						"mimeType": "application/pdf"
					}
				],
				"tags": [],
				"notes": [
					{
						"note": "<h1> HUDOC Legal Summary </h1> <br/>\r\n<div><p >Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 122</p><p >August-September 2009</p><p >Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC] - 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90 et al.</p><p >Judgment 18.9.2009 [GC]</p><p >Article 2</p><p >Positive obligations</p><p >Article 2-1</p><p >Effective investigation</p><p >Failure to conduct effective investigation into fate of Greek Cypriots missing since Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in 1974: violation</p><p >&#xa0;</p><p >Article 3</p><p >Inhuman treatment</p><p >Silence of authorities in face of real concerns about the fate of Greek Cypriots missing since Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in 1974: violation</p><p >&#xa0;</p><p >Article 5</p><p >Article 5-1</p><p >Liberty of person</p><p >Failure to conduct effective investigation into arguable claim that missing Greek Cypriots may have been detained during Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in 1974: violation</p><p >&#xa0;</p><p >Article 35</p><p >Article 35-1</p><p >Six month period</p><p >Application in disappearance case lodged more than six months after the respondent State’s ratification of the right of individual petition: preliminary objection dismissed</p><p >&#xa0;</p><p >Article 35-2</p><p >Same as matter already examined</p><p >Court’s jurisdiction where it had already examined case concerning substantially same facts in an inter-State case: preliminary objection dismissed</p><p >&#xa0;</p><p >Article 35-3</p><p >Ratione temporis</p><p s temporal jurisdiction in respect of disappearances that had occurred some thirteen years before the respondent State recognised the right of individual petition: preliminary objection dismissed</p><p >&#xa0;</p><p >Facts – The applicants were relatives of nine Cypriot nationals who disappeared during Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in July and August 1974. The facts were disputed. Eight of the missing men were members of the Greek-Cypriot forces and it is alleged by the applicants that they disappeared after being captured and detained by Turkish military forces. Witnesses had testified to seeing them in Turkish prisons in 1974 and some of the men were identified by their families from photographs of Greek-Cypriot prisoners of war that were published in the Greek press. The Turkish Government denied that the men had been taken into captivity by Turkish forces and maintained that they had died in action during the conflict. The ninth missing man, Mr&#xa0;Hadjipanteli, was a bank employee. The applicants alleged that he was one of a group of people taken by Turkish forces for questioning in August 1974 and who had been missing ever since. His body was discovered in 2007 in the context of the activity of the United Nations Committee of Missing Persons in Cyprus (CMP). The CMP was set up in 1981 with the task of drawing up comprehensive lists of missing persons on both sides and specifying whether they were alive or dead. It has no power to attribute responsibility or to make findings as to the cause of death. Mr&#xa0;Hadjipanteli’s remains were exhumed from a mass grave near a Turkish-Cypriot village. A medical certificate indicated that he had received bullet wounds to the skull and right arm and a wound to the right thigh. The Turkish Government denied he had been taken prisoner, noting that his name was not on the list of Greek Cypriots held in the alleged place of detention, which had been visited by the International Red Cross.</p><p >In a judgment of 10&#xa0;January 2008 (see Information Note no.&#xa0;104) a Chamber of the Court held that there had been continuing procedural violations of Articles&#xa0;2 and&#xa0;5, and a violation of Article&#xa0;3. It found no substantive violation of Article&#xa0;5.</p><p >Law</p><p >(a)&#xa0;&#xa0;Preliminary objections – The respondent Government challenged the Court’s jurisdiction to examine the case on several counts. Firstly, they submitted that there was no legal interest in determining the applications as the Court had already 
					}
				],
				"seeAlso": []
			}
		]
	},
	{
		"type": "web",
		"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22loizidou%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-57920%22]}",
		"defer": true,
		"items": [
			{
				"itemType": "case",
				"caseName": "Loizidou v. Turkey  (preliminary objections)",
				"creators": [],
				"dateDecided": "1995-03-23",
				"abstractNote": "Question of procedure rejected (locus standi of the applicant Government); Preliminary objection rejected (abuse of process); Preliminary objection rejected (ratione loci); Preliminary objection joined to merits (ratione temporis)",
				"court": "ECtHR [GC]",
				"docketNumber": "15318/89",
				"language": "eng",
				"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57920",
				"attachments": [
					{
						"title": "HUDOC Full Text PDF",
						"mimeType": "application/pdf"
					}
				],
				"tags": [],
				"notes": [
					{
						"note": "<h1> HUDOC Legal Summary </h1> <br/>\r\n<div><p >Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.</p><p >March 1995</p><p >Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections) - 15318/89</p><p >Judgment 23.3.1995 [GC]</p><p >Article 1</p><p >Jurisdiction of states</p><p >Jurisdiction of Turkey in case concerning access to property in northern Cyprus</p><p >Article 35</p><p >Article 35-3</p><p >Ratione temporis</p><p >Restrictions ratione temporis des déclarations turques relatives à la Convention: preliminary objection joined to the merits</p><p >[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]</p><p >I.STANDING OF THE APPLICANT GOVERNMENT</p><p >The applicant Government have been recognised by the international community as the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.  </p><p >Conclusion: their locus standi as the Government of a High Contracting Party not in doubt.</p><p >II.ALLEGED ABUSE OF PROCESS</p><p >Since objection not raised before the Commission the Turkish Government is estopped from raising it before the Court in so far as it applies to the applicant.</p><p >In so far as objection is directed to the applicant Government, the Court notes that this Government have referred the case to the Court inter alia because of concern for the rights of the applicant and other citizens in the same situation.  Such motivation not an abuse of Court's procedures.</p><p >Conclusion: objection rejected (unanimously).</p><p >III.THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN THE PROCEEDINGS</p><p >Not within the discretion of a Contracting Party to characterise its standing in the proceedings before the Court in the manner it sees fit.  Case originates in a petition made under Article&#xa0;25 against Turkey in her capacity as a High Contracting Party and has been referred to the Court under Article&#xa0;48&#xa0;(b) by another High Contracting Party.</p><p >Conclusion: Turkey is the respondent party in this case.</p><p >IV.SCOPE OF THE CASE</p><p >The applicant Government have confined themselves to seeking a ruling on the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 8, in so far as they have been declared admissible by the Commission, concerning access to the applicant's property.</p><p >Not necessary to give a general ruling on the question whether it is permissible to limit a referral to the Court to some of the issues on which the Commission has stated its opinion.</p><p >Conclusion: only the above complaints are before the Court.  </p><p >V.OBJECTIONS RATIONE LOCI</p><p >A.Whether the facts alleged by the applicant are capable of falling within the jurisdiction of Turkey under Article 1 of the Convention</p><p >Court is not called upon at the preliminary objections stage to examine whether Turkey is actually responsible.  This falls to be determined at the merits phase. Its enquiry is limited to determining whether the matters complained of are capable of falling within the \"jurisdiction\" of Turkey even though they occur outside her national territory.</p><p >The concept of \"jurisdiction\" under Article&#xa0;1 is not restricted to the national territory of the High Contracting Parties.  Responsibility may also arise when as a consequence of military action, whether lawful or unlawful, a Contracting Party exercises effective control of an area outside its national territory.</p><p >Not disputed that the applicant was prevented by Turkish troops from gaining access to her property. </p><p >Conclusion: facts alleged by the applicant are capable of falling within Turkish \"jurisdiction\" within the meaning of Article 1 (sixteen votes to two).  </p><p >B.Validity of the territorial restrictions attached to Turkey's Article 25 and 46 declarations</p><p >Court has regard to the special character of the Convention as a treaty for the collective enforcement of human rights; the fact that it is a living instrument to be interpreted in the light of present-day cond
					}
				],
				"seeAlso": []
			}
		]
	},
	{
		"type": "web",
		"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22typedescription%22:[%2224%22],%22itemid%22:[%22003-3004688-3312583%22]}",
		"defer": true,
		"items": [
			{
				"itemType": "case",
				"caseName": "Advisory Opinion (no. 2) 22.01.2010",
				"creators": [],
				"dateDecided": "2010-01-22",
				"court": "ECtHR [GC]",
				"language": "eng",
				"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=003-3004688-3312583",
				"attachments": [
					{
						"title": "HUDOC Full Text PDF",
						"mimeType": "application/pdf"
					}
				],
				"tags": [],
				"notes": [],
				"seeAlso": []
			}
		]
	},
	{
		"type": "web",
		"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-194320%22]}",
		"defer": true,
		"items": [
			{
				"itemType": "case",
				"caseName": "Romeo Castaño c. Belgique",
				"creators": [],
				"dateDecided": "2019-07-09",
				"abstractNote": "Violation de l'article 2 - Droit à la vie (Article 2-1 - Enquête effective) (Volet procédural); Préjudice moral - réparation (Article 41 - Préjudice moral; Satisfaction équitable)",
				"court": "ECtHR",
				"docketNumber": "8351/17",
				"language": "fre",
				"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-194320",
				"attachments": [
					{
						"title": "HUDOC Full Text PDF",
						"mimeType": "application/pdf"
					}
				],
				"tags": [],
				"notes": [
					{
						"note": "<h1> HUDOC Legal Summary </h1> <br/>\r\n<div><p >Note d’information sur la jurisprudence de la Cour 231</p><p >Juillet 2019</p><p >Romeo Castaño c. Belgique - 8351/17</p><p >Arrêt 9.7.2019 [Section II]</p><p >Article 1</p><p >Juridiction des États</p><p >Juridiction de la Belgique née du refus d’exécuter un mandat d’arrêt européen, empêchant une enquête sur un meurtre en Espagne</p><p >Article 2</p><p >Article 2-1</p><p >Enquête effective</p><p >Refus d’exécuter un mandat d’arrêt européen, empêchant une enquête sur un meurtre en Espagne, au motif insuffisamment étayé du risque de mauvaises conditions de détention&#xa0;: violation</p><p >En fait – En 1981, le père des requérants fut assassiné par un commando appartenant à l’organisation terroriste ETA. En 2007, tous les membres du commando furent condamnés par la justice espagnole, hormis N.J.E., qui s’est réfugiée en Belgique. </p><p >Des mandats d’arrêt européens (ci-après «&#xa0;MAE&#xa0;») ont été décernés par un juge d’instruction espagnol en 2004, 2005 et 2015 à l’encontre de N.J.E. aux fins de poursuites pénales. Mais en 2013 et 2016, la chambre des mises en accusation belge refusa toutefois l’exécution des MAE estimant qu’il y avait de sérieux motifs de croire que l’exécution du MAE porterait atteinte aux droits fondamentaux de N.J.E. Le parquet fédéral belge se pourvut en cassation contre ces arrêts. Mais la Cour de cassation rejeta les pourvois en 2013 et 2016.</p><p >Les requérants se plaignent que l’Espagne ait été empêchée de poursuivre N.J.E. par le refus des autorités belges d’exécuter les MAE, système mis en place au sein de l’Union européenne (UE).</p><p >En droit</p><p >Article 1 (compétence ratione loci)&#xa0;: Le grief que les requérants tirent de l’article&#xa0;2 de la Convention à l’égard de la Belgique concerne le manquement allégué des autorités belges à coopérer avec les autorités espagnoles en prenant les mesures nécessaires pour permettre que l’auteure présumée de l’assassinat de leur père, réfugiée en Belgique, soit jugée en Espagne. Il ne repose donc pas sur l’affirmation d’un manquement de la Belgique à une éventuelle obligation procédurale d’enquêter elle-même sur cet assassinat.</p><p >Dans le cadre de l’existence d’engagements de coopération en matière pénale liant les deux États concernés par le biais du MAE, les autorités belges ont été informées de l’intention des autorités espagnoles de poursuivre N.J.E., et sollicitées de procéder à son arrestation et à sa remise.</p><p >Ces circonstances suffisent à considérer qu’un lien juridictionnel existe entre les requérants et la Belgique au sens de l’article&#xa0;1 concernant le grief soulevé par les requérants sous l’angle du volet procédural de l’article&#xa0;2.</p><p >Conclusion&#xa0;: exception préliminaire rejetée (unanimité).</p><p >Article 2 (volet procédural)&#xa0;: Dans le cadre de l’exécution d’un MAE par un État membre de l’UE, il convient de ne pas appliquer le mécanisme de reconnaissance mutuelle de manière automatique et mécanique, au détriment des droits fondamentaux. Compte tenu de la présomption de respect par l’État d’émission des droits fondamentaux qui prévaut dans la logique de la confiance mutuelle entre États membres de l’UE, le refus de remise doit être justifié par des éléments circonstanciés indiquant un danger manifeste pour les droits fondamentaux de l’intéressé de nature à renverser ladite présomption. En l’espèce, les juridictions belges ont justifié leur décision de refus d’exécuter les MAE émis par le juge d’instruction espagnol en raison du risque, en cas de remise à l’Espagne, que N.J.E. y subisse une détention dans des conditions contraires à l’article&#xa0;3 de la Convention. Cette justification peut constituer un motif légitime pour refuser l’exécution du MAE, et donc pour refuser la coopération avec l’Espagne. Encore faut-il, 
					}
				],
				"seeAlso": []
			}
		]
	},
	{
		"type": "web",
		"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22hanan%22],%22typedescription%22:[%2223%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-166884%22]}",
		"defer": true,
		"items": [
			{
				"itemType": "case",
				"caseName": "Hanan v. Germany (communicated)",
				"creators": [],
				"dateDecided": "2016-09-02",
				"abstractNote": "Communicated",
				"court": "ECtHR",
				"docketNumber": "4871/16",
				"language": "eng",
				"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-166884",
				"attachments": [
					{
						"title": "HUDOC Full Text PDF",
						"mimeType": "application/pdf"
					}
				],
				"tags": [],
				"notes": [],
				"seeAlso": []
			}
		]
	},
	{
		"type": "web",
		"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-207757%22]}",
		"defer": true,
		"items": [
			{
				"itemType": "case",
				"caseName": "Georgia v. Russia (ii)",
				"creators": [],
				"dateDecided": "2021-01-21",
				"abstractNote": "Preliminary objections dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies; Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria; (Art. 35-3-a) Ratione loci; Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life; Article 2-2 - Use of force) (Substantive aspect); Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment; Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect); Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home); Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions); Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment; Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect); Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Liberty of person); Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect); Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general}; No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-{general} (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education); Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect); Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities); Just satisfaction reserved (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)",
				"court": "ECtHR [GC]",
				"docketNumber": "38263/08",
				"language": "eng",
				"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-207757",
				"attachments": [
					{
						"title": "HUDOC Full Text PDF",
						"mimeType": "application/pdf"
					}
				],
				"tags": [],
				"notes": [
					{
						"note": "<h1> HUDOC Legal Summary </h1> <br/>\r\n<div><p >Information Note on the Court’s case-law 247</p><p >January 2021</p><p >Georgia v. Russia (II) [GC] - 38263/08</p><p >Judgment 21.1.2021 [GC]</p><p >Article 1</p><p >Jurisdiction of States</p><p >Jurisdiction of Russia over Abkhazia and South Ossetia during the active phase of hostilities and after their cessation</p><p >Article 2</p><p >Article 2-1</p><p >Effective investigation</p><p >Russia’s failure to comply with procedural obligation to investigate effectively the events that occurred both during the active phase of the hostilities and after their cessation: violation</p><p >Article 2 of Protocol No. 4</p><p >Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4</p><p >Freedom of movement</p><p >Administrative practice as regards the inability of Georgian nationals to return to their respective homes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia: violation</p><p >Facts – As in the case of Georgia v. Russia (I), the application was lodged in the context of the armed conflict between Georgia and the Russian Federation in August 2008 following an extended period of ever-mounting tensions, provocations and incidents that opposed the two countries.</p><p >The applicant Government submitted that, in the course of indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks by Russian forces and/or by the separatist forces under their control, hundreds of civilians were injured, killed, detained or went missing, thousands of civilians had their property and homes destroyed, and over 300,000 people were forced to leave Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In their submission, these consequences and the subsequent lack of any investigation engaged Russia’s responsibility under Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention, Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.</p><p >Law</p><p >Article 1- Jurisdiction</p><p >The Court made a distinction between the military operations carried out during the active phase of hostilities and the other events which require examining in the context of the present international armed conflict, including those that occurred during the “occupation” phase after the active phase of hostilities had ceased, and the detention and treatment of civilians and prisoners of war, freedom of movement of displaced persons, the right to education and the obligation to investigate.</p><p >Active phase of hostilities during the five-day war (from 8 to 12 August 2008) </p><p >The present case marked the first time since the decision in Banković and Others (concerning the NATO bombing of the Radio‑Television Serbia headquarters in Belgrade) that the Court had been required to examine the question of jurisdiction in relation to military operations (armed attacks, bombing, shelling) in the context of an international armed conflict. However, the Court’s case-law on the concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction had evolved since that decision, in that the Court had, inter alia, established a number of criteria for the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by a State, which had to remain exceptional, the two main criteria being that of “effective control” by the State over an area (spatial concept of jurisdiction) and that of “State agent authority and control” over individuals (personal concept of jurisdiction). Subsequently, in Medvedyev and Others the Court had explicitly reiterated, with reference to the Banković and Others decision, that a State’s responsibility could not be engaged in respect of “an instantaneous extraterritorial act, as the provisions of Article 1 did not admit a ‘cause and effect’ notion of ‘jurisdiction’” (see also also <a  href=\"http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-202468\">M.N. and Others v. Belgium</a> (dec.) [GC]).</p><p >In that connection it could be considered from the outset that, in the event of military operations – including, for example, armed attacks, bombing or shelling – carried out during an international armed conflict, one could not generally speak of “effective control” over an area. The very
					}
				],
				"seeAlso": []
			}
		]
	},
	{
		"type": "web",
		"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22r%C3%A9vision%22],%22importance%22:[%221%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22JUDGMENTS%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-175647%22]}",
		"defer": true,
		"items": [
			{
				"itemType": "case",
				"caseName": "Moreira Ferreira c. Portugal (n° 2)",
				"creators": [],
				"dateDecided": "2017-07-11",
				"abstractNote": "Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae); Partiellement irrecevable (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae); Non-violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure pénale; Article 6-1 - Accès à un tribunal; Accusation en matière pénale; Procès équitable)",
				"court": "ECtHR [GC]",
				"docketNumber": "19867/12",
				"language": "fre",
				"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-175647",
				"attachments": [
					{
						"title": "HUDOC Full Text PDF",
						"mimeType": "application/pdf"
					}
				],
				"tags": [],
				"notes": [
					{
						"note": "<h1> HUDOC Legal Summary </h1> <br/>\r\n<div><p >Note d’information sur la jurisprudence de la Cour 209</p><p >Juillet 2017</p><p >Moreira Ferreira c. Portugal (n° 2) [GC] - 19867/12</p><p >Arrêt 11.7.2017 [GC]</p><p >Article 6</p><p >Procédure pénale</p><p >Article 6-1</p><p >Accès à un tribunal</p><p >Accusation en matière pénale</p><p >Procès équitable</p><p >Plainte concernant le refus par une juridiction nationale de rouvrir une procédure pénale suite au constat d’une violation de l’article 6 par la Cour européenne&#xa0;: recevable</p><p >Rejet par la Cour suprême d’une demande de révision d’un jugement pénal suite à un arrêt de la Cour européenne concluant à  violation de l’article 6&#xa0;: non-violation</p><p >En fait – Un arrêt de la Cour suprême du 21&#xa0;mars&#xa0;2012 a rejeté la demande de révision d’un jugement pénal qui avait été présentée par la requérante suite à un arrêt rendu par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme («&#xa0;la Cour&#xa0;») concluant à une violation de l’article&#xa0;6 §&#xa0;1 (Moreira Ferreira c.&#xa0;Portugal, <a  href=\"http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-105519\">19808/08</a>, 5&#xa0;juillet&#xa0;2011). Au regard de l’article&#xa0;41, la Cour concluait qu’un nouveau procès ou une réouverture de la procédure à la demande de l’intéressé représenterait en principe un moyen approprié de redresser la violation constatée. À cet égard, elle notait que l’article&#xa0;449 du code de procédure pénale portugais permet la révision d’un procès sur le plan interne lorsque la Cour a constaté la violation des droits et libertés fondamentaux de l’intéressé.</p><p >La Cour suprême a considéré que l’arrêt de la Cour n’était pas inconciliable avec la condamnation qui avait été prononcée à l’encontre de la requérante et ne soulevait pas de doutes graves sur son bien-fondé comme l’exige l’article&#xa0;449 §&#xa0;1&#xa0;g) du code de procédure pénale.</p><p >La requérante se plaint d’une mauvaise interprétation faite par la Cour suprême de l’arrêt de la Cour, emportant une violation des articles 6 §&#xa0;1 et 46 §&#xa0;1 de la Convention. </p><p >En droit – Article&#xa0;6 §&#xa0;1</p><p >a)&#xa0;&#xa0;Recevabilité</p><p >i.&#xa0;&#xa0;L’article&#xa0;46 de la Convention fait-il obstacle à l’examen par la Cour du grief tiré de l’article&#xa0;6 de la Convention&#xa0;? – Le manque d’équité allégué de la procédure conduite dans le cadre de la demande de révision, et plus précisément les erreurs qui, selon la requérante, ont entaché le raisonnement de la Cour suprême, constituent des éléments nouveaux par rapport au précédent arrêt de la Cour.</p><p >Par ailleurs, la procédure de surveillance de l’exécution de l’arrêt, à ce jour pendante devant le Comité des Ministres, n’empêche pas la Cour d’examiner une nouvelle requête dès lors que celle-ci renferme des éléments nouveaux non tranchés dans l’arrêt initial.</p><p >Partant, l’article&#xa0;46 de la Convention ne fait pas obstacle à l’examen par la Cour du grief nouveau tiré de l’article&#xa0;6 de la Convention.</p><p >ii.&#xa0;&#xa0;Le nouveau grief de la requérante est-il compatible ratione materiae avec l’article&#xa0;6 §&#xa0;1 de la Convention&#xa0;? – La Cour suprême doit confronter la condamnation en question aux motifs retenus par la Cour pour conclure à la violation de la Convention. Aussi appelée à statuer sur la demande d’autorisation de révision, la Cour suprême a fait un réexamen sur le fond d’un certain nombre d’éléments de la question litigieuse de la non-comparution de la requérante en appel et des conséquences de cette absence sur le bien-fondé de sa condamnation et de l’établissement de sa peine. Au vu de la portée du contrôle opéré par la haute juridiction, celui-ci doit être considéré comme un prolongement de la procédure close par l’arrêt du 19&#xa0;décembre&#xa0;2007 confirmant la condamnation de la re
					}
				],
				"seeAlso": []
			}
		]
	},
	{
		"type": "web",
		"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-211069%22]}",
		"defer": true,
		"items": [
			{
				"itemType": "case",
				"caseName": "Sa Casino, Guichard-Perrachon Et Sas A.m.c. c. France (communiquée)",
				"creators": [],
				"dateDecided": "2021-06-15",
				"abstractNote": "Affaire communiquée",
				"court": "ECtHR",
				"docketNumber": "59031/19",
				"language": "fre",
				"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-211069",
				"attachments": [
					{
						"title": "HUDOC Full Text PDF",
						"mimeType": "application/pdf"
					}
				],
				"tags": [],
				"notes": [],
				"seeAlso": []
			}
		]
	},
	{
		"type": "web",
		"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22languageisocode%22:[%22FRE%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22ADVISORYOPINIONS%22],%22itemid%22:[%22003-6380431-8364345%22]}",
		"defer": true,
		"items": [
			{
				"itemType": "case",
				"caseName": "Avis Consultatif Relatif À La Reconnaissance En Droit Interne D’un Lien De Filiation Entre Un Enfant Né D’une Gestation Pour Autrui Pratiquée À L’étranger Et La Mère D’intention",
				"creators": [],
				"dateDecided": "2019-04-10",
				"court": "ECtHR [GC]",
				"language": "fre",
				"url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=003-6380431-8364345",
				"attachments": [
					{
						"title": "HUDOC Full Text PDF",
						"mimeType": "application/pdf"
					}
				],
				"tags": [],
				"notes": [],
				"seeAlso": []
			}
		]
	}
]
/** END TEST CASES **/