Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 87
June 2006
Panteleyenko v. Ukraine - 11901/02
Judgment 29.6.2006 [Section V]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Disclosure of psychiatric information: violation
Article 6
Article 6-2
Presumption of innocence
Court decisions terminating proceedings on “non-exonerative” grounds left no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt: violation
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for home
Search of private notary’s office: violation
Article 13
Effective remedy
Remedies following search of notary office and disclosure of psychiatric information: violations
Facts: The applicant was suspected of fraud committed while acting in his capacity as a private notary. The Chernigiv Public Prosecutor issued a search warrant in respect of his office; the authorities seized a number of objects including personal possessions belonging to the applicant. Subsequently the prosecutor ordered the proceedings discontinued on the ground that, although it was proved that the applicant had committed the offence in question, it was too insignificant to warrant prosecution. The applicant challenged this finding before the competent courts, claiming that he had not committed any offence, but without success. In the meantime the applicant instituted proceedings against the prosecutor’s office, seeking compensation for the material and moral damage which he had suffered as a result of the search which had in his submission been unlawful; this was ultimately refused on the ground that the case against the applicant had been closed on “non-exonerative” grounds. Finally, the applicant brought civil proceedings against the Chernigiv Law College and its Principal for defamation, alleging that, during a hearing of the Attestation Commission, the Principal had made three statements about him which were libellous and abusive, including one rudely questioning his mental health. After obtaining evidence that the applicant had in the past suffered from mental illness, which was read out at a hearing in the presence of the parties and the public, the court went on to reject the applicant’s claim on the ground that the applicant had failed to prove that the alleged remarks about his sanity had actually been made. On appeal, the appellate court upheld this judgment in substance but found the first-instance court at fault for divulging confidential information about the applicant’s mental health.
Law: Article 8 (search of the applicant’s office) – The search of the applicant’s office amounted to an interference, within the meaning of Article 8, with his right to respect for his home. Domestic legislation contains safeguards against arbitrary interference by the authorities with the right to respect for home, including, inter alia, the obligation to serve the search warrant in advance on a person occupying the relevant premises and the prohibition on seizing any documents and items which do not directly relate to the case under investigation; however, as was in fact acknowledged by the domestic courts, the prosecution officials, although aware of the applicant’s whereabouts, did not attempt to serve the search warrant on him and seized all documents from the office and certain personal items belonging to the applicant which were clearly unrelated to the criminal case. Interference not “in accordance with the law”.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 8 (disclosure of confidential psychiatric information) – Obtaining from a psychiatric hospital confidential information regarding the applicant’s mental state and relevant medical treatment and disclosing it at a public hearing constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his “private life”. The Court of Appeal, having reviewed the case, came to the conclusion that the first instance judge’s treatment of the applicant’s personal information had not complied with the special regime concerning collection, retention, use and dissemination afforded to psychiatric data by the Data Act 1992. Moreover, the Court notes that the details in issue being incapable of affecting the outcome of the litigation (i.e. the establishment of whether the alleged statement was made and the assessment whether it was libellous), the Novozavodsky Court’s request for information was redundant, as the information was not “important for an inquiry, pre-trial investigation or trial”, and was thus unlawful for the purposes of the Psychiatric Medical Assistance Act 2000. Interference not “in accordance with the law”.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 6(2) – The Court does not consider it necessary to determine in the present case whether in principle the refusal to award compensation on the basis that the criminal proceedings were terminated on “non-exonerative” grounds in itself violates the presumption of innocence. It notes that in the present case the court decisions terminating the criminal proceedings against the applicant were couched in terms which left no doubt as to their view that the applicant had committed the offence with which he was charged.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 13 (search) – The criminal case against the applicant was terminated at the pre-trial stage and the subsequent judicial review concerned purely procedural matters related to the investigator’s closing of the criminal case on the given grounds. Therefore, these proceedings did not and could not include the assessment of the lawfulness of the particular investigative actions. Furthermore, although the applicant could have applied to a higher prosecutor in order to have the search of his office declared unlawful, and although the “authority” referred to in Article 13 does not necessarily have to be a judicial authority the Court notes that, even assuming that the prosecutor possessed the required independence, the prosecutor did not have the power to award any damages for the established wrongdoing on the part of the investigating authorities and so this remedy could not possibly have afforded any relief to the applicant. Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 13 (disclosure of the psychiatric information) – Although admittedly a request for a hearing in camera would have prevented the information coming to the knowledge of the public, it would not have withheld that information from the parties or the court case file. The complaint to the appellate court, though successful, proved ineffective in so far as the finding of unlawfulness did not result in the discontinuation of the disclosure of confidential psychiatric data in the court case file or any award to the applicant of compensation for damages suffered as the result of the unlawful interference with his private life.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 2,315 for pecuniary and EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
© 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