PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 56925/08) against the Swiss Confederation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Swiss national, Mr Arnaud Bédat (“the applicant”), on 7 November 2008. Having originally been designated by the initials A.B., the applicant subsequently agreed to the disclosure of his name.

The applicant was represented by Mr C. Poncet and Mr D. Hoffmann, lawyers practising in Geneva. The Swiss Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr F. Schürmann, of the Federal Office of Justice.

The applicant alleged that the fine imposed on him in criminal proceedings for having published information covered by the secrecy of criminal investigations had violated his right to freedom of expression as secured by Article 10 of the Convention.

The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 1 July 2014 a Chamber of that Section, composed of Guido Raimondi, Işıl Karakaş, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, Helen Keller, Paul Lemmens and Robert Spano, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, delivered its judgment (see A.B. v. Switzerland, no. 56925/08, 1 July 2014), in which it declared the application admissible and held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The joint dissenting opinion of Judges Karakaş, Keller and Lemmens was annexed to the judgment. On 29 September 2014 the Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 of the Convention. On 17 November 2014 a panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request.

The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24.

The applicant and the Government each filed further observations (Rule 59 § 1).

A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 13 May 2015 (Rule 59 § 3). There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr F. Schürmann, Head of the International Human Rights Protection Unit, Federal Office of Justice, Agent, Ms D. Steiger Leuba, Mr F. Galli, Mr P. Rohner, Advisers; (b) for the applicant Mr C. Poncet, Mr D. Hoffmann, Counsel. The Court heard addresses by Mr Poncet, Mr Schürmann and Mr Hoffmann and replies by Mr Poncet and Mr Schürmann to questions put by judges.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant is a journalist by profession. On 15 October 2003 he published an article in the weekly magazine L’Illustré entitled “Drame du Grand-Pont à Lausanne – la version du chauffard – l’interrogatoire du conducteur fou” (“Tragedy on the Lausanne Bridge – the reckless driver’s version – Questioning of the mad driver”). The article in question concerned a set of criminal proceedings against M.B., a motorist who had been remanded in custody after an incident on 8 July 2003 in which he had rammed his car into pedestrians, before throwing himself off the Lausanne Bridge (Grand-Pont). The incident, in which three people had died and eight others had been injured, had caused much emotion and controversy in Switzerland. The article began as follows. “Surname: B. First name: M. Born on 1 January 1966 in Tamanrasset (Algeria), son of B.B. and F.I., resident in Lausanne, holder of a category C licence, spouse of M.B. Profession: nursing assistant ... It is 8.15 p.m. on Tuesday 8 July 2003, in the austere premises of the Lausanne criminal investigation department. Six hours after his tragic headlong race along the Lausanne Bridge, resulting in three deaths and eight casualties, this reckless driver is alone for the first time, facing three investigators. Will he own up? In fact he doesn’t actually seem to realise what is happening, as if oblivious to the events and all the hubbub around him. The man who upset the whole of Lausanne this fine summer day is not very talkative. This Algerian citizen is withdrawn, introverted, inscrutable, indeed completely impenetrable. And yet the questions are flying from all sides. What were the reasons for this ‘accident’, one of the policemen rather clumsily writes, as if he had already formed his opinion. Four words in reply: ‘I do not know’.”

The article continued with a summary of the questions put by the police officers and the investigating judge and M.B.’s replies. It also mentioned that M.B. had been “charged with premeditated murder [assassinat] and, in the alternative, with murder [meurtre], grievous bodily harm, endangering life and serious traffic offences”, and that he “appear[ed] to show no remorse”. The article was accompanied by several photographs of letters which M.B. had sent to the investigating judge. It ended with the following paragraph. “From his prison cell, M.B. now spends his time sending letters to the investigating judge ...: on being taken into custody he asked for his watch to be returned and requested a cup for his coffee, some dried fruit and chocolate. On 11 July, three days after the events, he even asked to be temporarily released for ‘a few days’. ‘I would like to phone my big brother in Algeria’, he subsequently begged. He finally announced on 11 August that he had come to a ‘final decision’: he dismissed his lawyer, Mr M.B., on grounds of ‘lack of trust’. Two days later, another letter: could the judge send him ‘the directory of the Bar Association of the Canton of Vaud’ to help him find a different defence lawyer? However, with all the recurrent lies and omissions, the mixture of naivety and arrogance, amnesia and sheer madness characterising all these statements, surely M.B. is doing everything in his power to make himself impossible to defend?”

The article also included a brief summary entitled “He lost his marbles...” (“Il a perdu la boule...”), and statements from M.B.’s wife and from his doctor.

It appears from the file that the applicant’s article was not the only piece to have been published on the Lausanne Bridge tragedy. The authorities responsible for the criminal investigation had themselves decided to inform the press of certain aspects of the investigation, which had led to the publication of an article in the Tribune de Genève on 14 August 2003.

M.B. did not lodge a complaint against the applicant. However, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on the initiative of the public prosecutor for having published secret documents. It emerged from the investigation that one of the parties claiming damages in the proceedings against M.B. had photocopied the case file and lost one of the copies in a shopping centre. An unknown person had then brought the copy to the offices of the magazine which had published the impugned article.

By an order of 23 June 2004, the investigating judge sentenced the applicant to one month’s imprisonment, suspended for one year.

Following an application by the applicant to have the decision set aside, the Lausanne Police Court, by a judgment of 22 September 2005, replaced the prison sentence with a fine of 4,000 Swiss francs (CHF) (approximately 2,667 euros). At the hearing on 13 May 2015, in reply to a question from the Court, the applicant’s representative stated that the sum of CHF 4,000 had been advanced by his client’s employer and that his client was intending to refund it after the proceedings before the Court. He also confirmed that the amount set by the criminal court had taken account of the applicant’s previous record.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. His appeal was dismissed on 30 January 2006 by the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Canton of Vaud.

The applicant lodged a public-law appeal and an appeal on grounds of nullity with the Federal Court, which on 29 April 2008 dismissed the appeals. Its decision was served on the applicant on 9 May 2008. The relevant passages from the decision follow. “7. In short, the appellant submits that his conviction for a breach of Article 293 of the Criminal Code is contrary to federal law. He does not challenge the fact that the information which he published falls within the ambit of Article 293 of the Criminal Code. He does, on the other hand, submit, under an interpretation of Articles 293 and 32 of the Criminal Code in the light of the principles inferred from Article 10 ECHR by the European Court of Human Rights, that having received that information in good faith without obtaining it unlawfully, he had the duty as a professional journalist, under Article 32 of the Criminal Code, to publish it owing to what he sees as the obvious interest of the so-called ‘Lausanne Bridge’ case to the general public in French-speaking Switzerland. 7.1. In accordance with Article 293 of the Criminal Code (Publication of secret official deliberations), anyone who, without being entitled to do so, makes public all or part of the documents, investigations or deliberations of an authority which are secret by law or by virtue of a decision taken by that authority, acting within its powers, will be punished by a fine (paragraph 1). Complicity in such acts is also punishable (see paragraph 2). The court may decide not to impose any penalties if the secret thus made public is of minor importance (see paragraph 3). According to case-law, this provision proceeds from a formal conception of secrecy. It is sufficient that the documents, deliberations or investigations in question have been declared secret by law or by virtue of a decision taken by the authority, or in other words that there has been an intention to keep them from becoming public, regardless of the type of classification selected (for example, top secret or confidential). On the other hand, strict secrecy presupposes that the holder of the specific information wishes to keep it secret, that there is a legitimate interest at stake, and that the information is known or accessible only to a select group of persons (see ATF [Judgments of the Swiss Federal Court] 126 IV 236, point 2a, p. 242, and 2c/aa, p. 244). This state of affairs was not altered by the entry into force of paragraph 3 of this Article on 1 April 1998 (RO [Recueil officiel – Official Collection of Federal Statutes] 1998 852 856; FF [Feuille fédérale] 1996 IV 533). That rule concerns not secrets in the substantive sense but rather instances of futile, petty or excessive concealment (see ATF 126 IV 236, point 2c/bb, p. 246). In order to exclude the application of paragraph 3, the court must therefore first of all examine the reasons for classifying the information as secret. It must, however, do so with restraint, without interfering with the discretionary power wielded by the authority which declared the information secret. It is sufficient that this declaration should nonetheless appear tenable vis-à-vis the content of the documents, investigations or deliberations in issue. Moreover, the journalists’ viewpoint on the interest in publishing the information is irrelevant (see ATF 126 IV 236, point 2d, p. 246). In its Stoll v. Switzerland judgment of 10 December 2007, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed that this formal conception of secrecy was not contrary to Article 10 ECHR inasmuch as it did not prevent the Federal Court from determining whether the interference in issue was compatible with Article 10 ECHR, by assessing, in the context of its examination of Article 293, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code, the justification for classifying a given piece of information as secret, on the one hand, and weighing up the interests at stake, on the other (see Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no. 69698/01, §§ 138-39, ECHR 2007-V). 7.2. In the present case the offence with which the appellant is charged concerned the publication of records of interviews and correspondence contained in the case file of a live criminal investigation. In pursuance of Article 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Canton of Vaud (CPP/VD), all investigations must remain secret until their final conclusion (see paragraph 1). The secrecy requirement relates to all the evidence uncovered by the investigation itself as well as all non-public decisions and investigative measures (see paragraph 2). The law also specifies that the following are bound by secrecy vis-à-vis anyone who does not have access to the case file: the judges and judicial staff (save in cases where disclosure would facilitate the investigation or is justified on public-order, administrative or judicial grounds; see Article 185 CPP/VD), and also the parties, their friends and relatives, their lawyers, the latter’s associates, consultants and staff, and any experts and witnesses. However, disclosure to friends or relatives by the parties or their lawyer is not punishable (see Article 185a CPP/VD). Lastly, the law provides for a range of exceptions. As an exception to Article 185, the cantonal investigating judge and, with the latter’s agreement, the judge responsible for the preliminary inquiry or senior police officers specially appointed by the cantonal government [Conseil d’État] (see Article 168, paragraph 3) may inform the press, radio or television about a pending investigation if so required by the public interest or considerations of fairness, particularly where public cooperation is required to shed light on an offence, in cases which are particularly serious or are already known to the general public, or where erroneous information must be corrected or the general public reassured (see Article 185b, paragraph 1, CPP/VD). The present case therefore concerns secrecy imposed by the law rather than by an official decision. 7.3. As a general rule, the reason for the confidentiality of judicial investigations, which applies to most sets of cantonal criminal proceedings, is the need to protect the interests of the criminal proceedings by anticipating risks of collusion and the danger of evidence being tampered with or destroyed. Nevertheless, the interests of the accused must not be disregarded either, particularly vis-à-vis the presumption of innocence and, more broadly, the accused’s personal relations and interests (see Hauser, Schweri and Hartmann, Schweizerisches Strafprozessrecht, 6th ed., 2005, § 52, no. 6, p. 235; Gérard Piquerez, op. cit., § 134, no. 1066, p. 678; Gérard Piquerez, Procédure pénale suisse: manuel, 2nd ed., 2007, no. 849, pp. 559 et seq.), as well as the need to protect the opinion-forming process and the decision-making process within a State authority, as protected, precisely, by Article 293 of the Criminal Code (see ATF 126 IV 236, point 2c/aa, p. 245). The European Court of Human Rights has already had occasion to deem such a purpose legitimate in itself. The aim is to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary in accordance with the wording of Article 10 § 2 ECHR, which also mentions the protection of the reputation or rights of others (see Weber v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, § 45, Series A no. 177, and Dupuis and Others v. France, no. 1914/02, § 32, 7 June 2007). Furthermore, in so far as the impugned publication concerned excerpts from records of interviews of the accused and reproduced certain letters sent by the latter to the investigating judge, this evidence can validly be classified secret, by prohibiting public access to it, as provided by the legislation of the Canton of Vaud. This is the inescapable conclusion as regards the records of interviews of the accused, as it would be inadmissible to allow such documents to be analysed in the public sphere, before the conclusion of the investigation, before the trial and out of context, in a manner liable to influence the decisions taken by the investigating judge and the trial court. It is also the only possible conclusion as regards the letters sent by the accused to the investigating judge, which focused on practical problems and criticisms of his lawyer (see Police Court judgment, point 4, p. 7). We might point out here that it appears from the impugned publication – which the cantonal authorities did not reproduce in full in their decisions, although they did refer to it and its content is not disputed – that the aforementioned practical problems concerned requests for temporary release and for access to personal effects (letters of 11 July 2003), for a change of cell (letter of 7 August 2003) and for authorisation to use the telephone (letter of 6 August 2003). Regardless of the guarantee of the presumption of innocence and the inferences concerning the detainee’s character which might be drawn during the criminal proceedings from such correspondence, the detainee, whose liberty is considerably restricted, even in respect of everyday acts relating to his private life, or indeed intimate sphere, can expect the authority restricting his liberty to protect him from public exposure of the practical details of his life as a remand prisoner and as a person facing charges (see Article 13 of the Constitution). It follows that in the instant case the information published by the appellant, in so far as it concerned the content of the records of his interviews and his correspondence with the investigating judge, cannot be described as a secret of minor importance for the purposes of Article 293, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code. That being so, the impugned publication constituted the factual elements of the offence provided for in Article 293, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code. 7.4. Moreover, the information in question may be described as being secret in substantive terms because it was only accessible to a restricted number of persons (the investigating judge and the parties to the proceedings). Furthermore, the investigating authority was desirous to keep them secret, with not only a legitimate interest in doing so but an obligation under the Cantonal Code of Criminal Procedure, the justification for which was mentioned above (see point 7.3 above). 7.5. Therefore, the only remaining point at issue is the existence of justification.

In short, the appellant submits that he had the professional duty (under former Article 32 of the Criminal Code) as a journalist to publish the information in question because of what he describes as the obvious interest in the ‘Lausanne Bridge’ case for the population of French-speaking Switzerland. He considers that in the light of European case-law, the basic assumption should be that publication is justified in principle unless there is a pressing social need to maintain secrecy. From the standpoint of good faith, he submits that Article 32 should apply to journalists who are not responsible for the indiscretion committed by a third party and who receive information without committing any offence themselves other than the breach of secrecy stemming from the publication. Lastly, he contends that the mode of publication is not a relevant criterion. 8.1. As regards the former point, the cantonal court found that while the accident of 8 July 2003, the circumstances of which were undoubtedly unusual, had triggered a great deal of public emotion, it had nevertheless, in legal terms, been simply a road accident with fatal consequences, and did not in itself entail any obvious public interest. It was not a case of collective trauma on the part of the Lausanne population, which would have justified reassuring the citizens and keeping them informed of the progress of the investigation (see judgment appealed against, point 2, p. 9). It is true that the ‘Lausanne Bridge case’ attracted extensive media coverage (see Police Court judgment, point 4, p. 8, to which the cantonal judgment refers (judgment appealed against, point B, p. 2)). However, this circumstance alone, alongside the unusual nature of the accident, is insufficient to substantiate a major public interest in publishing the confidential information in question. Unless it can be justified per se, the interest aroused among the public by media coverage of events cannot constitute a public interest in the disclosure of classified information, because that would mean that it would be sufficient to spark the public’s interest in a certain event in order to justify the subsequent publication of confidential information likely to maintain that interest. Furthermore, such a public interest is manifestly lacking as regards the letters that were published. As we have seen above (see point 7.3 above), these letters virtually exclusively concerned criticisms levelled by the accused against his lawyer and such practical problems as requests for temporary release, for access to personal effects, to change cells and to use the telephone. This type of information provides no relevant insights into the accident or the circumstances surrounding it. It relates to the private life, or indeed intimate sphere, of the person in custody, and it is difficult to see any interest which its publication could satisfy other than a certain kind of voyeurism. The same applies to the appellant’s requests to the investigating judge in relation to his choice of defence lawyer. Nor is it clear, as regards the records of his interviews, what political question or matter of public interest would have arisen or been worth debating in the public sphere, and the cantonal authorities explicitly ruled out the existence of any collective trauma which might have justified reassuring or informing the population. This finding of fact, which the appellant has not disputed in his public-law appeal, is binding on this court (see section 277 bis of the Federal Criminal Procedure Act). That being the case, the appellant fails to demonstrate the ‘obvious’ interest to the general public of the information published, and the cantonal court cannot be criticised for having concluded that at the very most, such an interest involved satisfying an unhealthy curiosity. 8.2. The other two factors relied upon by the appellant concern his behaviour (good faith in access to information and mode of publication). 8.2.1. It should first of all be noted that Article 293 of the Criminal Code punishes only the disclosure of information, irrespective of how the perpetrator obtained it. Moreover, even under Article 10 ECHR, the European Court does not attach decisive importance to this fact when considering whether applicants have fulfilled their duties and responsibilities. The determining fact is rather that they could not claim in good faith to be unaware that disclosure of the information was punishable by law (see Stoll, cited above, § 144, and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999‑I). This point is well-established in the present case (see section B above). 8.2.2. On the other hand, the mode of publication can play a more important role in the context of safeguarding freedom of expression. While the European Court of Human Rights reiterates that neither it, nor the domestic courts for that matter, should substitute their own views for those of the press as to what technique of reporting should be adopted by journalists, in weighing up the interests at stake it nevertheless takes account of the content, vocabulary and format of the publication, and of the headings and sub-headings (whether chosen by the journalist or the editors), and the accuracy of the information (see Stoll, cited above, §§ 146 et seq., especially 146, 147 and 149). In the instant case the cantonal court ruled that the tone adopted by the appellant in his article showed that his main concern was not, as he claims, to inform the general public about the State’s conduct of the criminal investigation. The headline of the article (‘Questioning of the mad driver’, ‘the reckless driver’s version’) already lacked objectivity. It suggested that the case had already been tried in the author’s view, in the sense that the fatalities on the Lausanne Bridge had been caused not by an ordinary motorist but by a ‘mad driver’, a man ‘oblivious to the events and all the hubbub around him’. The journalist concluded by wondering whether the driver was in fact doing his best to ‘make himself impossible to defend’. The manner in which he quoted the excerpts from the records of interviews and reproduced the letters sent by the defendant to the judge pointed to the motives of the author of the impugned article: he confined himself to sensationalism, his modus operandi being exclusively geared to satisfying the relatively unhealthy curiosity which anyone is liable to feel about this type of case. Readers of this highly biased publication would have formed an opinion and subjectively prejudged the future action to be taken by the courts regarding this case, without the least respect for the principle of presumption of innocence (see judgment appealed against, point 2, pp. 9 et seq.). The cantonal court concluded that this factor did not indicate that the public interest in receiving information prevailed. That court cannot be criticised on that account. 8.3. The appellant also submitted that the records of interviews and the letters would in any case be mentioned in subsequent public hearings. He inferred from this that preserving the confidentiality of this information could therefore not be justified by any ‘pressing social need’. However, the mere possibility that the secrecy of criminal investigations might be lifted during a subsequent phase of proceedings, particularly during the trial, which is generally subject to the publicity principle, does not undermine the justification for keeping judicial investigations confidential, because the primary aim is to protect the opinion-forming and decision-making processes on the part not only of the trial court but also of the investigating authority, until the completion of this secret phase of proceedings. Moreover, far from being neutral and comprehensive, the publication in issue included comments and assessments which presented the information in issue in a particular light, without providing the opportunities for adversarial argument which are the very essence of proceedings in trial courts. 8.4. Lastly, the appellant did not explicitly criticise the amount of the fine imposed on him. Nor did he challenge the refusal to grant him a probationary period after which the fine would be struck out (former Article 49, point 4, in conjunction with former Article 106, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code) under Swiss law. From the angle of weighing up the interest in the interference, we might simply note that the fine imposed, the amount of which took into account a previous conviction dating back to 1998 (imposition of a CHF 2,000 fine, which could be struck out after a two-year probationary period, for coercion and defamation), does not exceed half the amount of the appellant’s monthly income at the material time (see Police Court judgment, point 1, p. 5), and there is nothing to suggest that his freelance status at the time of the first-instance judgment led to any significant drop in his earnings. It should also be pointed out that at CHF 4,000 the amount of the fine is below the statutory maximum set out in former Article 106, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code (as in force until 31 December 2006), and that this maximum amount, set by the legislature more than thirty years ago, was not revised until the entry into force of the new general section of the Criminal Code, which now sets a figure of CHF 10,000 (see Article 106, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code as in force since 1 January 2007). Furthermore, the sanction for the offence with which the appellant is charged did not prevent him from expressing his views, since it was imposed after the article had been published (see Stoll, cited above, § 156). That being the case, it is unclear, in view of the nature of the offence charged (the least serious in the classification set out in the Swiss Criminal Code), the amount of the fine and the time of its imposition, how the sanction imposed on the applicant could be regarded as a form of censorship. 8.5. It follows from the foregoing that the appellant disclosed a secret within the meaning of Article 293, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code and that he cannot rely on any justifying factor in his favour. The decision appealed against does not violate federal law as interpreted in the light of the Convention provisions relied upon by the appellant.”
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e1
001-161898_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
56925/08
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e2
001-161898_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Swiss Confederation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e3
001-161898_a11_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Swiss
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e4
001-161898_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Arnaud Bédat
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e5
001-161898_a11_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
7 November 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e6
001-161898_a11_em6
PERSON
DIRECT
A.B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e7
001-161898_a11_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Mr C. Poncet
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e8
001-161898_a11_em8
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Hoffmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e9
001-161898_a11_em9
LOC
NO_MASK
Geneva
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e2
001-161898_a11_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
001-161898_a11_em2
Swiss Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e10
001-161898_a11_em11
PERSON
QUASI
Mr F. Schürmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e11
001-161898_a11_em12
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Office of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e12
001-161898_a11_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
1 July 2014
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e13
001-161898_a11_em14
PERSON
NO_MASK
Guido Raimondi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e14
001-161898_a11_em15
PERSON
NO_MASK
Işıl Karakaş
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e15
001-161898_a11_em16
PERSON
NO_MASK
András Sajó
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e16
001-161898_a11_em17
PERSON
NO_MASK
Nebojša Vučinić
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e17
001-161898_a11_em18
PERSON
NO_MASK
Helen Keller
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e18
001-161898_a11_em19
PERSON
QUASI
Paul Lemmens
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e19
001-161898_a11_em20
PERSON
QUASI
Robert Spano
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e20
001-161898_a11_em21
PERSON
NO_MASK
Abel Campos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e21
001-161898_a11_em22
PERSON
NO_MASK
Section Registrar
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e22
001-161898_a11_em23
MISC
DIRECT
A.B. v. Switzerland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e1
001-161898_a11_em24
CODE
DIRECT
56925/08
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e12
001-161898_a11_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
1 July 2014
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e14
001-161898_a11_em26
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-161898_a11_em15
Karakaş
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-161898_a11_e17
001-161898_a11_em27
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-161898_a11_em18
Keller
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e18
001-161898_a11_em28
PERSON
QUASI
001-161898_a11_em19
Lemmens
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e23
001-161898_a11_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
17 November 2014
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e24
001-161898_a11_em30
LOC
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e25
001-161898_a11_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
13 May 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e10
001-161898_a11_em32
PERSON
QUASI
Mr F. Schürmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e26
001-161898_a11_em33
ORG
NO_MASK
International Human Rights Protection Unit
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e11
001-161898_a11_em34
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Office of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e27
001-161898_a11_em35
PERSON
QUASI
Ms D. Steiger Leuba
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e28
001-161898_a11_em36
PERSON
QUASI
Mr F. Galli
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e29
001-161898_a11_em37
PERSON
QUASI
Mr P. Rohner
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e7
001-161898_a11_em38
PERSON
QUASI
Mr C. Poncet
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e8
001-161898_a11_em39
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Hoffmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e7
001-161898_a11_em40
PERSON
QUASI
001-161898_a11_em38
Mr Poncet
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e10
001-161898_a11_em41
PERSON
QUASI
001-161898_a11_em32
Mr Schürmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e8
001-161898_a11_em42
PERSON
QUASI
001-161898_a11_em39
Mr Hoffmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e7
001-161898_a11_em43
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Poncet
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e10
001-161898_a11_em44
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Schürmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e30
001-161898_a11_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
15 October 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-161898_a11_e31
001-161898_a11_em46
ORG
QUASI
L’Illustré
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e32
001-161898_a11_em47
MISC
QUASI
Drame du Grand-Pont à Lausanne – la version du chauffard – l’interrogatoire du conducteur fou
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e33
001-161898_a11_em48
MISC
QUASI
Tragedy on the Lausanne Bridge – the reckless driver’s version – Questioning of the mad driver
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-161898_a11_e4
001-161898_a11_em49
PERSON
NO_MASK
M.B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e34
001-161898_a11_em50
DATETIME
QUASI
8 July 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e35
001-161898_a11_em51
LOC
QUASI
Lausanne Bridge
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-161898_a11_e36
001-161898_a11_em52
LOC
QUASI
Grand-Pont
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e2
001-161898_a11_em53
ORG
NO_MASK
001-161898_a11_em2
Switzerland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e37
001-161898_a11_em54
PERSON
NO_MASK
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e38
001-161898_a11_em55
PERSON
NO_MASK
M.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e39
001-161898_a11_em56
DATETIME
QUASI
1 January 1966
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e40
001-161898_a11_em57
LOC
QUASI
Tamanrasset
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e41
001-161898_a11_em58
LOC
QUASI
Algeria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e42
001-161898_a11_em59
PERSON
NO_MASK
B.B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e37
001-161898_a11_em60
PERSON
NO_MASK
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-161898_a11_e43
001-161898_a11_em61
PERSON
NO_MASK
F.I.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e44
001-161898_a11_em62
LOC
QUASI
Lausanne
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e45
001-161898_a11_em63
DEM
QUASI
category C licence
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-161898_a11_e38
001-161898_a11_em64
PERSON
NO_MASK
M.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e4
001-161898_a11_em65
PERSON
NO_MASK
M.B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-161898_a11_e37
001-161898_a11_em66
PERSON
NO_MASK
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e46
001-161898_a11_em67
DEM
QUASI
nursing assistant
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e47
001-161898_a11_em68
DATETIME
NO_MASK
8.15 p.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e48
001-161898_a11_em69
DATETIME
QUASI
Tuesday 8 July 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e44
001-161898_a11_em70
LOC
QUASI
Lausanne
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e49
001-161898_a11_em71
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Six hours
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e35
001-161898_a11_em72
LOC
QUASI
Lausanne Bridge
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e50
001-161898_a11_em73
MISC
QUASI
three deaths and eight casualties
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e51
001-161898_a11_em74
MISC
QUASI
oblivious to the events and all the hubbub around him
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e44
001-161898_a11_em75
LOC
QUASI
Lausanne
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e52
001-161898_a11_em76
DATETIME
NO_MASK
summer day
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e53
001-161898_a11_em77
DEM
QUASI
Algerian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e4
001-161898_a11_em78
PERSON
NO_MASK
M.B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e4
001-161898_a11_em79
PERSON
NO_MASK
M.B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e54
001-161898_a11_em80
MISC
QUASI
premeditated murder [assassinat] and, in the alternative, with murder [meurtre], grievous bodily harm, endangering life and serious traffic offences
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e4
001-161898_a11_em81
PERSON
NO_MASK
M.B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e4
001-161898_a11_em82
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-161898_a11_em4
M.B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e55
001-161898_a11_em83
DATETIME
NO_MASK
11 July
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e56
001-161898_a11_em84
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e57
001-161898_a11_em85
DATETIME
NO_MASK
‘a few days’
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e41
001-161898_a11_em86
LOC
QUASI
Algeria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e58
001-161898_a11_em87
DATETIME
NO_MASK
11 August
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e4
001-161898_a11_em88
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-161898_a11_em4
Mr M.B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e59
001-161898_a11_em89
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Two days later
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e60
001-161898_a11_em90
ORG
QUASI
Bar Association of the Canton of Vaud
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e4
001-161898_a11_em91
PERSON
NO_MASK
M.B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e61
001-161898_a11_em92
MISC
QUASI
make himself impossible to defend
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e4
001-161898_a11_em93
PERSON
NO_MASK
M.B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e35
001-161898_a11_em94
LOC
QUASI
Lausanne Bridge
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e62
001-161898_a11_em95
ORG
NO_MASK
Tribune de Genève
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e63
001-161898_a11_em96
DATETIME
QUASI
14 August 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e4
001-161898_a11_em97
PERSON
NO_MASK
M.B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e4
001-161898_a11_em98
PERSON
NO_MASK
M.B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e64
001-161898_a11_em99
DATETIME
QUASI
23 June 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e65
001-161898_a11_em100
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e66
001-161898_a11_em101
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e67
001-161898_a11_em102
ORG
QUASI
Lausanne Police Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e68
001-161898_a11_em103
DATETIME
QUASI
22 September 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e69
001-161898_a11_em104
QUANTITY
QUASI
4,000 Swiss francs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e70
001-161898_a11_em105
QUANTITY
QUASI
approximately 2,667 euros
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e25
001-161898_a11_em106
DATETIME
QUASI
13 May 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e71
001-161898_a11_em107
QUANTITY
QUASI
CHF 4,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e72
001-161898_a11_em108
DATETIME
QUASI
30 January 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e73
001-161898_a11_em109
ORG
NO_MASK
Criminal Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e74
001-161898_a11_em110
LOC
QUASI
Canton of Vaud
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e75
001-161898_a11_em111
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e76
001-161898_a11_em112
DATETIME
QUASI
29 April 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e77
001-161898_a11_em113
DATETIME
QUASI
9 May 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e78
001-161898_a11_em114
ORG
NO_MASK
European Court of Human Rights
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e35
001-161898_a11_em115
LOC
QUASI
Lausanne Bridge
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e79
001-161898_a11_em116
DEM
QUASI
French
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e2
001-161898_a11_em117
ORG
NO_MASK
Switzerland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e80
001-161898_a11_em118
ORG
NO_MASK
Swiss Federal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e81
001-161898_a11_em119
DATETIME
QUASI
1 April 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e82
001-161898_a11_em120
MISC
NO_MASK
Stoll v. Switzerland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e83
001-161898_a11_em121
DATETIME
QUASI
10 December 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e78
001-161898_a11_em122
ORG
NO_MASK
European Court of Human Rights
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e82
001-161898_a11_em123
MISC
NO_MASK
Stoll v. Switzerland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e84
001-161898_a11_em124
CODE
NO_MASK
69698/01
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e74
001-161898_a11_em125
LOC
QUASI
Canton of Vaud
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e85
001-161898_a11_em126
ORG
NO_MASK
cantonal government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e86
001-161898_a11_em127
ORG
NO_MASK
Conseil d’État
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e87
001-161898_a11_em128
MISC
QUASI
Hauser, Schweri and Hartmann, Schweizerisches Strafprozessrecht, 6th ed.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e88
001-161898_a11_em129
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e89
001-161898_a11_em130
PERSON
NO_MASK
Gérard Piquerez
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e89
001-161898_a11_em131
PERSON
NO_MASK
Gérard Piquerez
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e90
001-161898_a11_em132
MISC
NO_MASK
Procédure pénale suisse: manuel, 2nd ed.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e91
001-161898_a11_em133
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e78
001-161898_a11_em134
ORG
NO_MASK
European Court of Human Rights
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e92
001-161898_a11_em135
MISC
NO_MASK
Weber v. Switzerland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e93
001-161898_a11_em136
DATETIME
QUASI
22 May 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e94
001-161898_a11_em137
MISC
NO_MASK
Dupuis and Others v. France
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e95
001-161898_a11_em138
CODE
NO_MASK
1914/02
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e96
001-161898_a11_em139
DATETIME
QUASI
7 June 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e74
001-161898_a11_em140
LOC
QUASI
Canton of Vaud
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e97
001-161898_a11_em141
MISC
NO_MASK
cantonal authorities
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e98
001-161898_a11_em142
DATETIME
QUASI
11 July 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e99
001-161898_a11_em143
DATETIME
QUASI
7 August 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e100
001-161898_a11_em144
DATETIME
QUASI
6 August 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e101
001-161898_a11_em145
MISC
NO_MASK
Cantonal Code of Criminal Procedure
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e102
001-161898_a11_em146
MISC
QUASI
‘Lausanne Bridge’ case
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e79
001-161898_a11_em147
DEM
QUASI
French
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e2
001-161898_a11_em148
ORG
NO_MASK
001-161898_a11_em2
Switzerland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e34
001-161898_a11_em149
DATETIME
QUASI
8 July 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e103
001-161898_a11_em150
MISC
QUASI
road accident with fatal consequences
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e44
001-161898_a11_em151
LOC
QUASI
Lausanne
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e104
001-161898_a11_em152
MISC
QUASI
‘Lausanne Bridge case’
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e35
001-161898_a11_em153
LOC
QUASI
Lausanne Bridge
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e97
001-161898_a11_em154
MISC
NO_MASK
cantonal authorities
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e105
001-161898_a11_em155
ORG
NO_MASK
European Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e106
001-161898_a11_em156
MISC
QUASI
Fressoz and Roire v. France
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e107
001-161898_a11_em157
CODE
NO_MASK
29183/95
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e78
001-161898_a11_em158
ORG
NO_MASK
European Court of Human Rights
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e108
001-161898_a11_em159
ORG
NO_MASK
cantonal court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e109
001-161898_a11_em160
MISC
QUASI
‘Questioning of the mad driver’
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e110
001-161898_a11_em161
MISC
QUASI
‘the reckless driver’s version’
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e35
001-161898_a11_em162
LOC
QUASI
Lausanne Bridge
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e111
001-161898_a11_em163
MISC
QUASI
mad driver
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e51
001-161898_a11_em164
MISC
QUASI
oblivious to the events and all the hubbub around him
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e61
001-161898_a11_em165
MISC
QUASI
make himself impossible to defend
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e3
001-161898_a11_em166
DEM
NO_MASK
Swiss
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e112
001-161898_a11_em167
QUANTITY
QUASI
CHF 2,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e113
001-161898_a11_em168
DATETIME
NO_MASK
two-year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e71
001-161898_a11_em169
QUANTITY
QUASI
CHF 4,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e114
001-161898_a11_em170
DATETIME
QUASI
31 December 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e115
001-161898_a11_em171
DATETIME
NO_MASK
thirty years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-161898_a11_e116
001-161898_a11_em172
QUANTITY
QUASI
CHF 10,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-161898_a11_e117
001-161898_a11_em173
DATETIME
QUASI
1 January 2007
Arnaud Bédat
CHE
GRANDCHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Arnaud Bédat