Ontslag ambtenaar wegens vermeende deelname aan informantennetwerk Tsjechoslowaakse geheime dienst - Mensenrechtenhof veroordeelt Slowakije (en)

Press release issued by the Registrar

CHAMBER JUDGMENT - TUREK v. SLOVAKIA

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Turek v. Slovakia (application no. 57986/00).

The Court held:

• • 

  by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and

• • 

  unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 900 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available in English and in French.)

• 1. 

  Principal facts

The applicant, Ivan Turek, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Prešov (Slovakia). He held a senior public sector post dealing with the administration of education in schools.

In March 1992, in response to a request made by his employer under the Lustration Act, an Act of 1991 which defined supplementary requirements for holding certain posts in the public sector, the Ministry of the Interior of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic issued a negative security certificate in respect of the applicant. As a consequence, he felt compelled to leave his job.

The document stated that he had been registered by the former State Security Agency (Štátna bezpe?nos?, “StB”) as its collaborator within the meaning of the Act and that he was therefore disqualified from holding certain posts in the public sector. The applicant claimed he had unwillingly met up with StB agents before and after trips he had made abroad in the mid 80s but had never passed on to them any confidential information and had not operated as an informer for the agency.

The applicant initially lodged an action against the Federal Ministry on 25 May 1992, but subsequently directed his action against the Slovak Intelligence Service (Slovenská informa?ná služba – “the SIS”), which had in effect taken over the StB archives. He sought a judicial ruling declaring that his registration as a collaborator with the StB had been wrongful.

In August 1995, at the request of Kolšice Regional Court, the SIS handed over all ex-StB documents concerning the applicant in its possession with the indication that the documents were top secret and that the rules on confidentiality were to be observed. The court then held a number of hearings where it heard the testimonies of several former StB agents. At a hearing held on 24 September 1998 the SIS submitted the Internal Guidelines of the Federal Ministry of 1972 concerning secret collaboration. That document was classified and the applicant was therefore denied access to it. The applicant’s action was dismissed on 19 May 1999.

In October 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the regional court’s judgment. It found, in particular, that only unjustified registration in the StB files would amount to a violation of an individual’s good name and reputation. It had therefore been crucial for the applicant to prove that his registration had been contrary to the rules applicable at the material time, which he had failed to do.

• 2. 

  Procedure and composition of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 April 2000 and declared admissible on 14 December 2004. In addition, third party comments were received from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Warsaw, Poland), which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2).

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Nicolas Bratza (British), President,

Josep Casadevall (Andorran),

Matti Pellonpää (Finnish),

Rait Maruste (Estonian),

Kristaq Traja (Albanian),

Ljiljana Mijovic (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina),

Ján Šikuta (Slovakian), judges,

and also Michael O’Boyle, Section Registrar.

• 3. 

  Summary of the judgment [2]

Complaints

The applicant alleged that the continued existence of a former Czechoslovak Communist Security Agency file registering him as one of its agents, the issuance of a security clearance to that effect, the dismissal of his action challenging that registration and the resultant effects constituted a violation of his right to respect for his private life. He also complained about the length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).

Decision of the Court

Article 8

The Court recognised that, particularly in proceedings related to the operations of state security agencies, there might be legitimate grounds to limit access to certain documents and other materials. However, in respect of lustration proceedings, that consideration lost much of its validity, particularly since such proceedings were by their nature orientated towards the establishment of facts dating from the communist era and were not directly linked to the current functions of the security services. Furthermore, it was the legality of the agency’s actions which was in question.

It noted that the domestic courts considered it of crucial importance for the applicant to prove that the State’s interference with his rights was contrary to the applicable rules. Those rules were, however, secret and the applicant did not have full access to them. On the other hand, the State – the SIS – did have full access. The Court found that that requirement placed an unrealistic and excessive burden on the applicant and did not respect the principle of equality. There had therefore been a violation of Article 8 concerning the lack of a procedure by which the applicant could seek protection for his right to respect for his private life.

The Court found it unnecessary to examine separately the effects on the applicant’s private life of his registration in the StB files and of his negative security clearance.

Article 6 § 1

With particular regard to what was at stake for the applicant, the Court found that the length of the proceedings, lasting seven years and some five months for two levels of jurisdiction, was excessive and failed to meet the reasonable time requirement in breach of Article 6.

Judge Maruste expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.

***

The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Registry of the European Court of Human Rights

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex

Press contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)

Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)

Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)

Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)

Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.

[1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.

[2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.