Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 132
July 2010
Užukauskas v. Lithuania - 16965/04
Judgment 6.7.2010 [Section II]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Civil rights and obligations
Proceedings challenging the recording of the applicant’s name in a secret police file and the withdrawal of firearms licence: article 6 applicable
Facts – The applicant held a firearms licence which was revoked by the Lithuanian authorities on the ground that he was listed in the operational records file compiled by law-enforcement officers which contained information about his alleged risk to society. He was required to hand in his arms to the police in return for payment. He challenged the entry of his name in the operational records file in the domestic courts, which, however, dismissed his action on the basis of classified material submitted by the police, without disclosing it to the applicant.
Law – Article 6 § 1
(a) Applicability – There could be little doubt that the information contained in the operational records file had had an impact on the applicant’s reputation, which merited protection under domestic law and fell within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention. Likewise, when information about a person’s life, including, inter alia, his criminal record, was systematically collected and stored in a file held by State agents, that information fell within the scope of “private life” for the purposes of Article 8. The Court could not rule out the possibility, albeit theoretical, that the listing of the applicant’s name in the operational records file could have resulted in restrictions on him entering certain private-sector professions or otherwise earning a living, thereby again affecting his private life. Indeed, under domestic law, certain professions, such as that of security officers, were not accessible to persons who had been listed in an operational records file. Lastly, as the applicant had been required to hand in the guns, albeit in return for payment, there could be little doubt that this had involved an interference with the right to the protection of property. Article 6 § 1 was therefore applicable to the impugned proceedings under its civil head.
(b) Merits – In order to determine whether or not the applicant had been involved in a criminal activity, it had been necessary for the judges to examine a number of factors, including the reason for the police operational activities and the nature and extent of the applicant’s suspected participation in the alleged crime. Had the defence been able to persuade the judges that the police had acted without good reason, the applicant’s name would have been removed from the operational records file. The data in that file was, therefore, of decisive importance to the applicant’s case. More importantly, as the domestic courts’ decisions showed, the operational records file had been the only evidence of the applicant’s alleged danger to society. However, Lithuanian law and judicial practice provided that information containing State secrets could not be used as evidence in court against a person unless it had been declassified, and that it could not be the only evidence on which a court based its decision. As the applicant had not been apprised of the evidence against him or had the opportunity to respond to it (unlike the police who had effectively exercised such rights), the decision-making procedure had not complied with the requirements of adversarial proceedings or equality of arms and had not incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the applicant.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 3,500 in respect of 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