Brinks v. the Netherlands (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 74

April 2005

Brinks v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 9940/04

Decision 5.4.2005 [Section III]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Non-disclosure of information held by the National Security Services: inadmissible

The applicant lived in the German Democratic Republic of Germany (“DDR”) in the late 1980’s. Upon his return to the Netherlands, he suspected that he had attracted the attention of the then Netherlands National Security Service (“BVD”). He claims that colleague academics labelled him as a “fellow traveller” of communism, which had a negative influence on his career prospects. The applicant requested the Minister of the Interior to inform him what data were contained in the file possibly held on him by the BVD. The applicant was granted access to outdated information to the extent that its contents would not lead to disclosure of BVD sources or working methods, or personal data of third persons. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the Minister’s decision before the Regional court. The Regional court, which was provided with the undisclosed BVD information which the applicant had not received, found that apart from one document which should have been disclosed to the applicant, there were no reasons to find the Minister’s decision incorrect. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State upheld this ruling.

Inadmissible under Article 8: The withholding of information from the applicant had constituted an interference with his private life. It had been “in accordance with the law” and pursued a legitimate aim, as the disclosure of such information could have harmed the Security of the State. Moreover, the withholding of the information had been subject to effective judicial control by the Regional court and the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. It was acceptable to consider, in line with the State’s appreciation that the interests of national security prevailed over those of the applicant in the present case. The interference had therefore been necessary in a democratic society: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy