Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 79
October 2005
Wypych v. Poland (dec.) - 2428/05
Decision 25.10.2005 [Section IV]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Obligation on local councillors to disclose their financial and property situation to the public: inadmissible
The applicant was elected town councillor in 2002. In 2003 amendments to the 1998 Local Government (County) Act came into force, imposing an obligation on local councillors to disclose information to the public concerning their financial situation and property portfolio. This is to be done by means of a declaration to the president of the local council. These declarations are subsequently published in a bulletin available to the general public viathe Internet. If a councillor refuses to submit a declaration, he or she will be deprived of his monthly emoluments, although not of the councillorship as such.
The applicant asked the Ombudsman to lodge a request with the Constitutional Court to examine whether the provisions in question were compatible with the Constitution. The applicant argued that making such information publicly available would facilitate political harassment and could expose him and his family to criminal acts. In 2004 the Constitutional Court found some of the 2003 amendments incompatible with the Constitution but did not examine the obligation at the heart of the applicant’s complaint under Article 8.
The European Court first left open the question whether the applicant should have lodged a constitutional complaint of his own motion in order to challenge the impugned provisions. It found that at any rate the interference with his right to respect for his private life was “in accordance with the law” and undoubtedly pursued the legitimate aim of “the prevention of crime”, namely corruption, in connection with the political process in local councils. The interference was also “necessary in a democratic society” in that running for public office is voluntary and the financial situation of persons holding such office is one of legitimate public interest and concern. A councillor’s obligation to declare his or her assets serves the purpose of ensuring transparency in the local political process. The information which councillors were being requested to submit was quitecomprehensive and the tax authorities were entitled to examine the veracity thereof in the light of the individual’s annual income-tax return. This, however, servedthe purpose of providing a safeguard against abuse or attempts by councillors to evade their obligation to disclose their financial situation. Making the information accessible to all interested parties via the Internet was a safeguard to ensure that the obligation to make declarations available was subject to public scrutiny. 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