(Čl. 7) Kažnjavanje samo na osnovu zakona
(Čl. 7-1) Retroaktivnost
(Čl. 8) Pravo na poštovanje privatnog i porodičnog života
(Čl. 8-1) Poštovanje porodičnog života
(Čl. 8-2) Mešanje
(Čl. 8-2) Neophodno u demokratskom društvu
(Čl. 8-2) Sprečavanje kriminala
(Čl. 8-2) Sprečavanje nereda
(Čl. 35) Uslovi prihvatljivosti
(Čl. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae
Srazmernost

Broj predstavke

16428/05

Zbirke

Sudska praksa
Presuda ESLJP
Veće

Sažetak

Predstavku je podneo francuski državljanin Fabris Gardel, rođen 1962, koji se nalazi u zatvoru zbog silovanja maloletnog lica, na izdržavanju kazne na koju je osuđen 2003. godine, nakon što je 1997. godine protiv njega podneta krivična prijava.
U Francuskoj je 2004. godine ustanovljen registar lica osuđenih za seksualne delikte (FIJAIS).
U novembru 2005. godine, Gardelu je dostavljeno pismeno obaveštenje o upisu njegovih podataka u ovaj registar, zbog presude koja mu je izrečena.

On se obratio ESLJP pozivajući se na povredu člana 7, u smislu retroaktivne primene zakona i člana 8, u smislu kršenja prava na poštovanje privatnog i porodičnog života.
Sud je odbacio deo predstavke koji se odnosi na kršenje člana 7 u smislu upisa njegovih podataka u FIJAIS bazu podataka, jer se njegovo registrovanje u bazi odnosi na presudu po kojoj je osuđen 2003. godine na zatvorsku kaznu dužu od 5 godina zbog seksualnog delikta (u bazu se upisuju sva lica osuđena na zatvorsku kaznu dužu od 5 godina za teška dela u oblasti seksualnih delikata).
U odnosu na kršenje člana 8, koje se odnosi na upis njegovih ličnih podataka u bazu podataka FIJAIS, utvrđeno je da ona sadrži podatke o ličnosti, ali da se ti podaci čuvaju na adekvatan način, kao i da je definisano na koji način i pod kojim uslovima se ovi podaci brišu iz evidencije. Stoga, nije bilo kršenja člana 8 Konvencije.

Preuzmite presudu u pdf formatu

EVROPSKI SUD ZA LJUDSKA PRAVA

PETO ODELJENJE

PREDMET GARDEL protiv FRANCUSKE

(Predstavka br.16428/05)

PRESUDA

STRAZBUR

17. decembar 2009.

PRESUDA JE IZVRŠNA

17/03/2010

Ova presuda je postala izvršna u skladu sa članom 44 § 2 Konvencije. Moguće su redaktorske izmene.

U predmetu Gardel protiv Francuske, Evropski sud za ljudska prava (peto odeljenje), u veću sastavljenom od :

Per Lorenzen (Peer Lorenzen), predsednik,
Renate Jeger (Renate Jaeger),
Žan-Pol Kosta (Jean-Paul Costa),
Rait Maruste (Rait Maruste),
Mark Filiger (Mark Villiger),
Izabel Bero-Lefevr (Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre),
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, sudije,
i Klaudija Vesterdik (Claudia Westerdiek), sekretar odeljenja,

Posle većanja na zatvorenoj sednici od 24. novembra 2009, Izriče sledeću presudu, usvojenu tog dana:

POSTUPAK

Predmet je formiran na osnovu predstavke (br. 16428/05) protiv Republike Francuske a čiji se jedan državljanin, G. Fabrice Gardel (Fabris Gardel) («podnosilac predstavke»), obratio sudu 30. aprila 2005. na osnovu člana 34 Konvencije o zaštiti ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda («Konvencija»).
Podnosioca predstavke, kome je dodeljena pravosudna pomoć, zastupa G. P. Sušal (Souchal), advokat u Nansiju. Francusku vladu («Vlada») zastupa njen agent, gospođa E.Blijar (E. Belliard), direktorka odeljenja za pravne poslove Ministarstva inostranih poslova.
Podnosilac predstavke se posebno žali na unošenje njegovih podataka u nacionalni registar seksualnih delinkvenata nakon što je osuđen. Pozvao se na član 7 Konvencije.
1. oktobra 2007, Sud je odlučio da predstavku dostavi Vladi. Na osnovu člana 29 §3, Sud je odlučio da će istovremeno biti razmatrani i prihvatljivost i zasnovanost predmeta.

ČINJENIČNO STANJE

I. OKOLNOSTI KONKRETNOG SLUČAJA

Podnosilac predstavke je rođen 1962 i sada se nalazi u zatvoru u Monmediju (Montmédy).
Po prijavi koju su podneli roditelji mlade S. 18. februara 1997, protiv podnosioca predstavke je pokrenuta istraga zbog silovanja i seksualne agresije nad maloletnim licem starim petnaest godina od strane lica s autoritetom.
Tokom istrage on je podneo više zahteva za dodatnim istražnim radnjama i merama koje su istražne instance odbacile.
Rešenjem od 15. aprila 2003, jedan istražni sudija višeg suda u Barle-Diku (Bar–le – Duc), konstatujući zastarelost, izrekao je delimičnu obustavu gonjenja u delu koji se odnosi na seksualne agresije. Sudija je osim toga izdao nalog da se podigne optužnica protiv podnosioca predstavke zbog silovanja maloletnog lica starog petnaest godina od strane lica koje nad žrtvom ima autoritet.
30. oktobra 2003, krivični sud departmana Mez (Meuse) osudio je podnosioca predstavke na petnaest godina strogog zatvora i izrekao mu zabranu vršenja svih njegovih građanskih i porodičnih prava u trajanju od deset godina.
Podnosilac predstavke nije uložio žalbu na tu presudu već je podneo zahtev za reviziju postupka ponudivši izvestan broj dokumenata za koje je verovao da mogu pobuditi sumnju u njegovu krivicu.
9. marta 2004, zakonom br. 2004-204 ustanovljena je automatizovana nacionalna evidencija počinilaca seksualnih delikata (FIJAIS).
11. aprila 2005, komisija za reviziju krivičnih presuda odbacila je zahtev podnosioca predstavke.
28. februara 2005, podnosilac predstavke je pred većem za izvršavanje kazni u Kreteju (Créteil) zatražio da mu se odobri mera suspenzije kazne. 17. juna 2005, taj zahtev je odbijen s obrazloženjem da se taj zahtev ne zasniva na rezultatima medicinskog veštačenja «koje bi dalo prognozu životnog veka podnosioca predstavke ili utvrdilo da je stanje njegovog zdravlja nespojivo s boravkom u zatvoru. Stoga ne ispunjava u ovom trenutku uslove iz člana 720-1-1 zakonika o krivičnom postupku i ne može polagati pravo na tu meru». Sud je podsetio i da kazna podnosioca predstavke ističe 27. maja 2019. i da je u njegovom krivičnom dosijeu navedena i jedna druga presuda za seksualne napade na maloletno lice staro petnaest godina od strane lica koje nad žrtvom ima autoritet (presuda od 29. avgusta 2002 koju je izrekao apelacioni sud u Nansiju na šest godina zatvora i socijalno-sudski nadzor zbog seksualne agresije na maloletno lice). Sud je zatim uzeo u obzir medicinske izveštaje kojima se kod podnosioca predstavke konstatuje urođena kardiopatija koja onemogućava bilo kakav napor i zbog koje se preporučuje režim poboljšanog običnog zatvora, odnosno posebnu samačku ćeliji, poštedu od hodanja ili od napora, dijetu bez soli, redovno uzimanje lekova. Sud se takođe pozvao i na psihijatrijsko veštačenje obavljeno u novembru 2004, a po kome psihološko evoluiranje podnosioca predstavke «izgleda vrlo ograničeno u smislu da on ne promišlja kritički sopstveno ponašanje. Ne izražava osećanje ni krivice ni odgovornosti za dela koja osporava. Određena psihoterapijska podrška bi mu mogla pomoći da u budućnosti postigne bolje odnose sa licima s kojima dolazi u kontakt».
13. oktobra 2005, veće za izvršenje kazni apelacionog suda u Parizu potvrdilo je tu presudu.
22.novembra 2005, podnosiocu predstavke jedan policijski poručnik iz policijskog komesarijata u E-le-Rozu (Hay-les-Roses) dostavio je pismeno obaveštenje o njegovom upisu u automatizovani nacionalni registar počinilaca seksualnih delikata (FIJAIS) zbog presude koju mu je izrekao krivični sud u Mezu a u skladu s prelaznim odredbama pomenutog zakona od 9. marta 2004. Dokument kojim se podnosilac predstavke obaveštava o tom upisu glasi:

«Ja dole potpisani G. Gardel Fabris izjavljujem da sam na današnji dan dobio pismeno obaveštenje da su moji podaci upisani u FIJAIS zbog [presude] kojom mi je kaznu strogog zatvora izrekao 30. oktobra 2003. krivični sud u Mezu i da sam po tom osnovu a primenom člana 706-53-5 zakonika o krivičnom postupku obavezan:

1. da pružim dokaz o svojoj adresi : (...) jednom godišnje bilo kod evidentičara registra (Ministarstvo pravde) (...) bilo u policijskom komesarijatu ili u sedištu žandarmerijske brigade mog mesta stanovanja

(...), tokom meseca u kome sam rođen ili meseca januara ako je moj datum rođenja nepoznat ili neodređen (...)

Izjavljujem izričito da sam upoznat s činjenicom da : da sam osuđen izvršnom presudom zbog krivičnog dela koje je po zakonu kažnjivo zatvorom u trajanju od deset godina ili više. Stoga imam obavezu da pružam dokaz o adresi ličnim javljanjem svakih šest meseci (...)

Primam k znanju da se, ako napustim državnu teritoriju, lično pojavljivanje suspenduje tokom mog boravka u inostranstvu, ali da sam u svakom slučaju dužan da pružim dokaz o adresi poštanskim pismom s povratnicom upućenim službi evidencije FIJAIS (...) uz dokaz o prebivalištu koji overava nadležni konzularni organ.

2. da prijavljujem promene adrese u roku od najviše petnaest dana nakon promene, na isti način.

Izjavljujem da sam obavešten :

- da moram pružiti dokaz o adresi prvi put u roku od petnaest dana od prijema ovog pismenog obaveštenja, osim ako sam je dobio manje od mesec dana pre prvog dana meseca u kome sam rođen, odnosno ako sam već u obavezi da godišnje pružam dokaz o adresi.

- da se nepoštovanje tih obaveza kažnjava s 2 godine zatvora i 30.000 evra novčane kazne.

- da će svako neizvršenje tih obaveza biti predmet postupka uzbunjivanja pravosudnih organa i policijskih službi i jedinica žandarmerije, što može da dovede do upisivanja mojih podataka u registar pod potragom uz eventualno krivično gonjenje.

- da se u smislu člana R. 53-8-13 pružanje dokaza o adresi i prijavljivanje promene adrese predviđeni članom 706-53-5 vrši pomoću bilo kog dokumenta na moje ime ne starijeg od tri meseca koji svedoči o mom stvarnom prebivalištu, posebno pomoću neke priznanice ili fakture.

- da ako dokument kojim se dokazuje adresa glasi na prebivalište nekog trećeg lica, uz njega se mora priložiti i potvrda o pružanju smeštaja sastavljena i potpisana od strane tog lica.

Takođe izjavljujem da sam obavešten da su mi na raspolaganju sledeća prava:

- primenom zakona o informatici i slobodama i člana 706-53-9, mogu da dobijem belešku sa svim podacima koji se odnose na mene unetim u registar tako što ću se obratiti Glavnom tužiocu lokalno nadležnom za mesto mog prebivališta.

- da zahtevam unošenje ispravki ili brisanje ili ograničenje na jednom godišnje učestalosti javljanja prema uslovima iz člana R 53-8-27 i naredni, obraćanjem glavnom tužiocu pri višem sudu u Nantu ako je presudu zbog koje su moji podaci uneseni u registar doneo neki inostrani».

II RELEVANTNO UNUTRAŠNJE PRAVO I PRAKSA

Nacionalni automatizovani registar počinilaca seksualnih delikata (FIJAIS), osnovan 2004, je kartoteka za sudsku identifikaciju, po ugledu na automatizovanu kartoteku otisaka prstiju (FAED), na nacionalnu kartoteku genetskih otisaka (FNAEG) i na Državni registar krivičnih dosijea (CJN), od kojih je ovaj potonji najstariji. Prema informativnom izveštaju o policijskim kartotekama predstavljen Narodnoj skupštini 24. marta 2009, došlo je do umnožavanja policijskih kartoteka: radna grupa kojom je predsedavao G. Alen Boer (M. Alain Bauer) izbrojala je trideset četiri različitih kartoteka 2006. godine, da bi ih izbrojala skoro četrdeset pet u 2008. godini, s tim što je još dvanaestak kartoteka bilo «u pripremi». Ministarstvo pravde je odgovorno za registar FIJAS i upravlja njime. Registar void služba CJN u Nantu; registar je pod kontrolom sudije koji rukovodi službom CJN.

A. FIJAIS

Automatizovani nacionalni registar počinilaca seksualnih ili «nasilnih» delikata ustanovljen je zakonom br. 2004-204 od 9. marta 2004 o prilagođavanju pravosuđa evoluiranju kriminaliteta. Cilj je prevencija ponavljanja seksualnih delikata, lakša identifikacija njihovih počinilaca i njihova brza lokalizacija u svakom trenutku. Prelaznim odredbama precizirani su modaliteta upisa u registar počinilaca pomenutih krivičnih dela pre stupanja na snagu navedenom zakona. te odredbe se primenjuju na počinioce dela počinjenih pre dana objavljivanja tog zakona, ali kojima je izrečena, posle tog datuma, jedna od presuda predviđenih članom 706-53-2 Zakonika o krivičnom postupku (videti donji stav 18). One se mogu primenjivati i na lica koja, pre datuma objavljivanja tog zakona, izdržavaju neku kaznu lišavanja slobode (na zahtev javnog tužioca).

1. Zakonik o krivičnom postupku (ZKP)

Relevantne odredbe ZKP glase:

Član 706-47

«Odredbe iz ovog naslova primenljive su na postupke koji se vode zbog ubistva ili svirepog ubistva maloletnog lica uz silovanje ili kome je silovanje prethodilo, za mučenje ili za varvarsko postupanje ili za dela seksualnih agresija ili napada ili podvođenja nad maloletnim licem, ili zbog korišćenja maloletnog lica za prostituciju

(...)

Ove odredbe se primenjuju i na postupke u vezi s teškim krivičnim delima ubistva ili svirepog ubistva počinjenih uz dela mučenja ili varvarskog postupanja, odnosno u vezi s delima ubistva ili svirepog ubistva u povratu».

Član 706-53-1

«Automatizovani nacionalni registar počinilaca seksualnih delikata ili delikata nasilja je automatizovana kompjuterska aplikacija za evidenciju nominativnih podataka koju vodi služba krivičnih dosijea u nadležnosti Ministarstva pravde i pod kontrolom jednog sudije. Radi sprečavanja ponavljanja krivičnih dela navedenih u članu 706-47 i radi lakšeg identifikovanja njihovih počinilaca, u ovaj registar se unose, pohranjuju i iz njega se dalje prosleđuju ovlašćenim licima informacije predviđene članom 706-53-2 prema modalitetima predviđenim u ovom poglavlju».

Član 706-53-2

«Kad se odnose, osim u slučajevima iz prve alineje ovog člana, na jednu ili više informacija navedenih u članu 706-47, u registar se unose informacije o identitetu kao i o adresi ili o uzastopnim adresama prebivališta i, eventualno, boravišta, lica koja su bila predmet:

1^o Presude, čak i ako ova još nije izvršna, uključujući i presudu u odsustvu ili izjave o krivici uz oslobađanje ili odlaganje kazne;

2^o Presude, čak i ako ova još nije izvršna, izrečene primenom članova 8, 15, 15-1, 16, 16 bis i 28 naredbe br. 45-174 od 2. februara 1945. u vezi s dečijom delinkvencijom;

3^o Krivične nagodbe predviđene članom 41-2 ovog zakonika čije je izvršenje konstatovao Glavni tužilac;

4^o Odluke o obustavi postupka, obustave zbog nedostatka dokaza ili o oslobađanju od krivice, zasnovane na odredbama iz prve alineje član 122-1 krivičnog zakonika ;

5^o Istrage uz stavljanje pod sudski nadzor, kad istražni sudija izda nalog za unošenje odluke u registar;

6^o Presude koja je po svojoj prirodi ista kao gore spomenute, koje su izrekli inostrani sudovi ili pravosudni organi, a koje su, primenom neke međunarodne konvencije ili sporazuma, bile predmet zvaničnog obaveštenja francuskim organima ili su izvršene u Francuskoj nakon transfera osuđenih lica.

Registar obuhvata i podatke u vezi sa sudskom odlukom kojom se pravda unos podataka, kao i o prirodi dela. Presude navedene pod 1^o i 2^o unose se u registar odmah po njihovom izricanju.

Presude koje se odnose na krivična dela iz člana 706-47 za koje je zaprećena kazna zatvora od pet godina ili manje ne unose se u registar, osim ako taj unos nije predmet izričite odluke suda ili, u slučajevima predviđenim pod 3^o i 4^o, glavnog tužioca».

Član 706-53-4

«Bez uticaja na primenu odredaba članova 706-53-9 i 706-53-10, podaci navedeni u članu 706-53-2 koji se odnose na jedno isto lice povlače se iz registra nakon smrti zainteresovanog odnosno po isteku, računajući od datuma kad sve presude prestanu da proizvode bilo kakav efekat, roka od:

1º Trideset godina ako je reč o zločinu ili o krivičnom delu kažnjivom sa deset godina zatvora;

2º Dvadeset godina u ostalim slučajevima.

Amnestija ili rehabilitacija kao ni pravila koja se odnose na brisanje presuda iz krivičnog dosijea ne povlače za sobom i brisanje ovih podataka.

Sami za sebe ovi podaci ne mogu služiti kao dokaz za utvrđivanje povrata krivičnog dela.

Navodi iz tačaka 1^o, 2^o i 5^o člana 706-53-2 izuzimaju se iz registra u slučaju konačne presude o obustavi postupka, o oslobađanju zbog nedostatka dokaza ili presude o oslobađanju od optužbe. Navodi predviđeni pod 5^o takođe se izuzimaju iz registra u slučaju prestanka ili ukidanja sudskog nadzora».

Član 706-53-5

«Lica čiji je identitet unet u registar dužno je, u smislu bezbednosne mere, da ispunjava obaveze iz ovog člana.

Lice je dužno da, bilo neposredno kod lica koje vodi registar, bilo preporučenim pismom s povratnicom, bilo u policijskom ili žandarmerijskom komesarijatu u mestu prebivališta, preporučenim pismom s povratnicom ili ličnim javljanjem službi:

1º jednom godišnje podnese dokaz o adresi stanovanja ;

2º prijavi promene adrese, u roku od petnaest dana najkasnije nakon promene.

Ako je lice pravosnažno suđeno za krivično delo kažnjivo sa deset godina zatvora, ono mora podnositi dokaz o adresi stanovanja jednom svakih šest meseci javljajući se u tom cilju lično u policijski komesarijat ili u žandarmerijsku jedinicu u mestu prebivališta, bilo u sedište žandarmerijske grupe departmana ili u direkciju javne bezbednosti departmana svog mesta prebivališta ili u bilo koju od prefekture u tu svrhu označenu službu.

Za nepoštovanje obaveza predviđenih ovim članom lice pod obavezom biće kažnjeno s dve godine zatvora i novčanom kaznom od 30.000 evra».

Član 706-53-6

«Lice čiji su podaci o identitetu uneti u registar o tome dobija obaveštenje od pravosudnog organa, bilo neposrednim ličnim obaveštavanjem, bilo preporučenim pismom upućenim na poslednju prijavljenu adresu.

Tada mu se saopštavaju i mere i obaveze koje je dužan da izvršava u smislu odredaba člana 706-53-5 kao i zaprećene kazne u slučaju nepoštovanja tih obaveza.

Kad je lice lišeno slobode, informacije predviđene ovim članom daju mu se u trenutku konačnog puštanja na slobodu ili pre nego što se primeni prva mera promene uslova izdržavanja kazne».

Član 706-53-7

izmenjen zakonom br. 2008-174 od 25. februara 2008 – član 15

«Informacijama sadržanim u registru mogu direktno pristupiti preko obezbeđenog telekomunikacionog sistema:

1^o Pravosudni organi ;

2^o Oficiri krivične policije, u okviru postupaka koji se odnose na teška krivična dela namernog nasrtaja na život, otmice ili nezakonitog zatočeništva, odnosno na neko od dela navedenih u članovima 706-53-5 i 706-53-8 ;

3^o Prefekti i upravni organi države čija je lista utvrđena uredbom predviđenom članom 706-53-12, a radi izdavanja administrativnih rešenja o zapošljavanju, postavljenju, o odobrenju, o saglasnosti ili o ovlašćenju u vezi s poslovima i aktivnostima koji podrazumevaju i kontakte s maloletnim licima, kao i radi kontrole izvršavanja tih poslova i aktivnosti. (...)

Predsednici opština, predsednici generalnih saveta i predsednici regionalnih saveta takođe dobijaju, posredstvom prefekta, informacije sadržane u registru, i to za ona administrativna rešenja navedena pod 3^o koja se odnose na poslove i aktivnosti koji podrazumevaju kontakt s maloletnim licima kao i radi kontrole izvršavanja tih poslova i aktivnosti».

Član 706-53-8

«U skladu s modalitetima utvrđenim uredbom predviđenom članom 706-53-12, lice koje vodi registar neposredno izveštava Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova, koje bez odlaganja prosleđuje informacije nadležnoj policijskoj službi ili žandarmeriji, u slučaju novog unosa podataka ili izmene adrese koja se odnosi na neki postojeći unos, ili kad lice nije podnelo dokaz o adresi u predviđenom roku. Policijske i žandarmerijske službe mogu vršiti provere i podnositi zahteve kod upravnih organa radi provere ili pronalaženja adrese lica.

Ako se utvrdi da lice nije više na naznačenoj adresi, glavni tužilac daje malog da se lice uvrsti u spisak lica za kojima je izdata poternica».

Član 706-53-9

«Svako lice koje podnese dokaz o identitetu, a na zahtev upućen glavnom tužiocu pri višem sudu u čijoj nadležnosti je mesto boravišta lica, dobiće obaveštenje o svim informacijama koje se odnose na to lice a koje su unete u registar».

Član 706-53-10 izmenjen zakonom od 5. marta 2007.

«Svako lice čiji su podaci o identitetu uneti u registar može tražiti od glavnog tužioca da izvrši ispravku ili da izda nalog za brisanje podataka koji se na to lice odnose ako ti podaci nisu tačni ili ako njihovo čuvanje više nije nužno s obzirom na namenu registra, a u pogledu prirode prekršaja, starosti lica u trenutku kad je delo počinjeno, vremena koje je otada proteklo i sadašnje ličnosti zainteresovanog lica.

Zahtev za brisanjem je neprihvatljiv sve dok predmetni navodi (Ukinuto zakonom br. 2007-297 od 5. marta 2007, član 43, računajući od 7. marta 2008) «opstaju u biltenu br.1 krivičnog dosijea zainteresovanog ili» se odnose na neki sudski postupak koji je još u toku (Zakon br. 2007-297 od 5. marta 2007, član 43) «sve dok lice nije rehabilitovano ili dok mera na osnovu koje su uneti podaci u registar nije izbrisana iz biltena br.1».

Ako glavni tužilac ne izda nalog za ispravku podataka ili za njihovo brisanje, lice može da se obrati sudiji za slobode i lišavanje slobode, čija odluka može biti osporena pred predsednikom istražnog veća.

Pre izjašnjavanja po zahtevu za unošenje ispravki ili za brisanje podataka, glavni tužilac, sudija za slobode i za lišavanje slobode i predsednik istražnog veća mogu da pristupe svom proverama koje smatraju nužnim i konkretno da izdaju nalog za medicinsko veštačenje zainteresovanog lica. Ako je reč o podatku koji se odnosi bilo na neki zločin, bilo na neko krivično delo za koje je zaprećena od deset godina zatvora, a delo je počinjeno nad maloletnim licem, brisanje predmetnog podatka se ne može izvršiti bez takvog veštačenja. (...)»

Član 706-53-12

«Modalitete i uslove primene odredaba iz ovog poglavlja određuju se uredbom Državnog saveta koja se donosi po pribavljenom mišljenju Državne komisije za informatiku i slobode.

U toj uredbi precizirani su uslovi pod kojima u registru ostaje trag o saslušanjima i konsultacijama zainteresovanog lica».

Član R53-8-34

«U registru ostaju tokom tri godine informacije o unošenju podataka i o saslušanjima zainteresovanog uz napomenu o svojstvu lica ili organa koji je uneo podatke.

Tim informacijama može pristupiti samo sudija načelnik službe vođenja registra ili, uz njegovo odobrenje, lica koja on za to posebno ovlasti. Ti podaci se mogu koristiti za potrebe statistike »

2. Sudska praksa Ustavnog saveta

U svojoj odluci br. 2004-492 DC od 2. marta 2004, Ustavni savet je izrazio mišljenje da «unošenje podataka o identitetu nekog lica u [FIJAIS](...) ima za cilj (...) da predupredi ponavljanje tih prekršaja i da olakša identifikovanje počinilaca ; da iz toga proističe da to unošenje podataka u registar ne predstavlja sankciju već policijsku meru (§ 74). Osim toga, Ustavni savet je izrazi mišljenje i da, kad je reč o unosu podataka u registar, o konsultovanju tih podataka i o korišćenju registra, da s obzirom s jedne strane na garancije obezbeđene uslovima konsultovanja i korišćenja registra, i s druge strane na ovlašćenja data pravosudnom organu da unosi u registar i da povlači iz njega nominalne podatke, s obzirom na težinu prekršaja kao osnova za unos nominalnih podataka u registar i na stopu povrata koja karakteriše taj tip prekršaja, osporavane odredbe predstavljaju sredstvo pomirenja između poštovanja privatnosti i zaštite javnog poretka, koje pomirenje očigledno nije u neravnoteži (§ 87)». Ustavni savet je, najzad, zaključio da «obaveza nametnuta licima čiji su podaci uneti u registar da periodično prijavljuju adresu svog prebivališta ili boravišta ne predstavlja sankciju već policijsku meru čiji je cilj da predupredi ponavljanje prekršaja i da olakša identifikovanje njihovih počinilaca ; da sam predmet registra čini nužnom kontinuiranu proveru adresa tih lica ; da obaveza koja im je nametnuta u cilju omogućavanja te proverene predstavlja [meru] koja ne bi bila nužna u smislu člana 9 Deklaracije iz 1789 (...)» (§ 91).

3. Sudska praksa Kasacionog suda

U jednoj presudi krivičnog veća od 12. marta 2008, Kasacioni sud se izjasnio o prirodi unosa podataka (videti takođe, crim, 31. oktobar 2006, bull. crim. n^o 267). Sud se izjasnio na sledeći način:

«Imajući u vidu da je (...) izdajući nalog za upis u FIJAIS apelacioni sud precizno primenio član 216 zakona od 9. marta 2004, kojim je predviđeno da se odredbe u vezi s tim unošenjem podataka primenjuju na prekršaje počinjene pre dana objavljivanja zakona, koji član nije u suprotnosti sa navedenim odredbama konvencije budući da unos podataka u FIJAIS, koje nije kazna već bezbednosna mera, ne potpada pod načelo neretroaktivnosti strožih osnovnih zakona; (...) »

Kasacioni sud je u svojoj sudskoj praksi potvrdio automatski karakter unosa podataka u FIJAIS za presude na kazne zatvora od više od pet godina (crim, 16. januar 2008).

4. Grupa za kontrolu policijskih i žandarmerijskih dosije

Ta radna grupa je dostavila Ministarstvu unutrašnjih poslova, prekomorskih teritorija i teritorijalnih zajednica, decembra 2008, izveštaj pod naslovom «Bolja kontrola sprovođenja mera za bolju zaštitu sloboda». Prema tom izveštaju, podaci o dvadeset hiljada dvesta dvadeset dva lica uneti su u FIJAIS prilikom osnivanja tog registra u junu 2005 ; u oktobru 2008. bilo ih je četrdeset tri hiljade četiristo osam.

B. Automatizovani nacionalne krivične evidencije

1. Opšte odredbe

Funkcionisanje nacionalne krivične evidencije (CJN) organizovano je na osnovu članova 768 do 781 Zakonika o krivičnom postupku. U CJN se čuvaju presude koje su izrekli krivični sudovi, ali i neke presude trgovinskog, upravnog ili disciplinskog karaktera ukoliko one impliciraju i neku nesposobnost. Krivični dosije ima tri dela. Podaci sadržani u krivičnom dosijeu dostavljaju se u obliku biltena.

Bilten br. 1 (član 774 ZKP) sadrži integralni popis uložaka u krivični dosije, odnosno sve presude koje se odnose na neko lice. On se dostavlja samo pravosudnim organima.

Bilten br. 2 (član 775 ZKP) sadrži većinu presuda za zločine i krivična dela osim presuda izrečenih maloletnim licima, inostranih presuda, prekršajnih presuda i uslovnih presuda kad istekne uslovni rok. Moguće je zatražiti od sudije da se neka presuda ne pojavljuje u biltenu br. 2 (ona ostaje zapisana međutim u biltenu br. 1). Tom biltenu imaju pristup samo neki upravni i vojni organi u precizno određenim slučajevima: prefekti, vojne vlasti, rukovodioci javnih preduzeća itd.

Bilten br. 3 (član 775 ZKP) predstavlja popis najtežih presuda izrečenih za zločin ili krivično delo, posebno kazni lišavanja slobode u trajanju dužem od dve godine. Taj bilten je jedini koji može biti dostavljen zainteresovanom licu.

2. Postupak rehabilitacije

Krivičnim zakonikom predviđen je postupak rehabilitacije osuđenih fizičkih lica koji omogućava brisanje neke presude iz krivičnog dosijea u roku kraćem od onog predviđenog zakonom (četrdeset godina). Prema odredbi člana 133-1 tog zakonika, rehabilitacijom se presuda briše.
Članom 133-13 postavljaju se uslovi punopravne rehabilitacije:

Član 133-13

«Fizičko lice osuđeno može biti punopravno rehabilitovano ako u niže utvrđenom roku nije bilo ponovo osuđivano za teško krivično delo ili za obično krivično delo:

(...)

3^o Za jedinstvenu presudu na kaznu zatvora ne dužu od deset godina ili za više presuda na kazne zatvora koje ukupno ne prelaze pet godina, po isteku roka od deset godina od isteka izrečene kazne, odnosno od dana zastarevanja. (...) »

Zakonikom o krivičnom postupku regulisan je postupak sudske rehabilitacije:

Član 785 alineja 1

«Za života osuđenog zahtev za rehabilitaciju može podnositi samo on, ili, ako je onemogućen, njegov zakonski zastupnik ; u slučaju smrti i ako su zakonski uslovi ispunjeni, postupak po zahtevu može nastaviti i čak ga mogu i podnositi, ali samo u roku od jedne godine računajući od datuma smrt».

Član 786

izmenjen zakonom br. 2004-204 od 9. marta 2004 – stupio na snagu 1. januara 2005.

«Zahtev za rehabilitaciju može se podnositi tek po isteku roka od pet godina za lica osuđena zbog teškog krivičnog dela (...).

Taj rok počinje da teče, (...) za lica osuđena na kaznu lišavanja slobode, od dana njihovog konačnog puštanja na slobodu ili, u skladu s odredbama člana 733, treća alineja, od dana puštanja na uslovnu slobodu, ako odluka o uslovnom puštanju na slobodu nije opozvana (...) »

Pravila u vezi s brisanjem podataka iz krivičnog dosijea :

Član 769

« (...) Iz krivičnog dosijea se povlače zapisi u vezi s presudama koje su brisane nakon amnestije ili koje su preinačene (...). Isto važi, (...) i za zapise u vezi s presudama izrečenim pre više od četrdeset godina a posle kojih nije bilo novih presuda za teško krivično delo ili za obično krivično delo.

Takođe se povlače iz krivičnog dosijea :

(...)

8^o Presude za koje je izrečena sudska rehabilitacija, kad je sud izričito naložio povlačenje presude iz krivičnog dosijea u skladu s drugom alinejom člana 798».

III. RELEVANTNO MEĐUNARODNO PRAVO

A. Instrumenti saveta Evrope

Konvencijom Saveta Evrope iz 1981. o zaštiti lica u kontekstu automatske obrade podataka ličnog karaktera («Konvencija o zaštiti podataka»), definišu se «podaci ličnog karaktera» kao bilo koji podaci koji se odnose na neko fizičko lice koje je identifikovano ili se može identifikovati. U Konvenciji se posebno ističe:

«Preambula (...)

Smatrajući da je poželjno proširiti zaštitu prava i osnovnih sloboda svakog pojedinca, posebno prava na poštovanje privatnosti, s obzirom na sve intenzivniji prekogranični protok podataka ličnog karaktera koji su predmet automatske obrade;

Član 5 – Svojstvo podataka

Podaci ličnog karaktera koji su predmet automatske obrade su: (...)

b. podaci koji su registrovani radi određenih i legitimnih ciljeva i koji se ne koriste na način nespojiv s tim ciljevima;

c. koji su adekvatni, relevantni i ne preterani u odnosu na ciljeve zbog kojih su registrovani;

(...)

e. koji se čuvaju u obliku koji omogućava identifikovanje odnosnih lica tokom perioda koji nije duži od nužnog trajanja za ciljeve zbog kojih su registrovani.

Član 6 – Posebne kategorije podataka

Lični podaci koji svedoče o rasnom poreklu, o političkim mišljenjima, o verskim i ostalim uverenjima, kao i lični podaci u vezi sa zdravstvenim stanjem ili seksualnim životom, ne mogu biti predmet automatske obrade, osim ako su unutrašnjim pravom predviđene u tu svrhu odgovarajuće garancije (...)

Član 7 – Bezbednost podataka

Odgovarajuće bezbednosne mere se preduzimaju radi zaštite podataka lične prirode koji su uneseni u automatizovane registre od slučajnom ili neovlašćenog uništavanja, ili od slučajnog gubljenja, kao i od neovlašćenog pristupa tim podacima, njihove neovlašćene izmene ili difuzije».

U Preporuci R (87) 15 Komiteta ministara, kojom se reguliše korišćenje podataka lične prirode u sektoru policije (usvojenoj 17. septembra 1987.) stoji:

«Načelo 2 – Prikupljanje podataka

2.1. Prikupljanje podataka lične prirode u policijske svrhe moralo bi da se ograniči na one podatke koji su nužni za sprečavanje neke konkretne opasnosti ili za represiju nekog određenog krivičnog dela. Svaki izuzetak od ove odredbe morao bi biti predmet jednog specifičnog nacionalnog zakona.

(...)

Načelo 3 – Registrovanje podataka

3.1. Koliko god je to moguće, registrovanje podataka lične prirode u policijske svrhe smelo bi da se odnosi samo na tačne podatke i da bude ograničeno na nužne podatke koji omogućavaju policijskim organima da obavljaju svoje zakonske zadatke u okviru unutrašnjeg prava i da izvršavaju obaveze koje proističu iz međunarodnog prava.

(...)

Načelo 7 – Trajanje čuvanja i ažuriranje podataka

7.1. Morale bi se preduzimati mere da bi se podaci ličnog karaktera koji se čuvaju u policijske svrhe brisali ako više nisu neophodni u svrhe zbog kojih su registrovani.

U tom cilju, treba posebno imati u vidu sledeće kriterijume: nužnost čuvanja podataka u svetlu zaključaka neke istrage o nekom datom slučaju; izricanje konačne presude a posebno oslobađajuće ; rehabilitacija ; zastarevanje ; amnestija ; starost lica ; posebne kategorije podataka».

B. Uporedno pravo

Senat Francuske republike objavio je u martu 2004, jednu «Studiju iz uporednog prava» (br. 133), u vezi s obradom seksualnih delikata počinjenih od strane maloletnih lica. U tom izveštaju se tvrdi da «da registar počinilaca seksualnih delikata postoji samo u Engleskoj i u Velsu». U Nemačkoj ne postoji savezni registar već dve pokrajine (Länder) raspolažu specifičnim dosijeima (Bavarska i Bremen). Bavarskom registru «HEADS» (Haft-Entlassenen -Auskunfts-Datei-Sexualstraftäter) mogu pristupati jedino policajci i sudije i tužioci. U Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu, registrovanje počinilaca delikata ograničeno je na lica osuđena na više od trideset meseci zatvora i ne postoji mogućnost brisanja memorisanih podataka (Sexual Offences Act 2003, s 82).

PRAVO

I. O PRIGOVORU ZBOG NEISCRPLJENOSTI UNUTRAŠNJIH PRAVNIH LEKOVA

Podnosilac predstavke se žali na unošenje njegovih podataka u FIJAIS koje mu je saopšteno22. novembra 2005. Poziva se na član 7 Konvencije. Ta optužba je takođe bila predmet pitanja koja je postavio Sud u vezi s članom 8 Konvencije.
Vlada ulaže prigovor zbog neiscrpljenosti unutrašnjih pravnih lekova predstavke. Ona ističe, kao što je to bilo izričito istaknuto na formularu pismenog obaveštenja uručenog podnosiocu predstavke, da je ovaj imao mogućnost da se obrati glavnom tužiocu zahtevom za ispravku, u skladu sa članom 706-53-10 ZKP, za optužbe na osnovu kršenja Konvencije.
Podnosilac predstavke smatra da se taj tekst ne može tumačiti kao pravni lek protiv samog upisa u registar. On stoga smatra se ta mogućnost ne može razumeti kao delotvorni pravni lek protiv unošenja podataka u FIJAIS.
Sud konstatuje da se postavlja pitanje delotvornosti pravog leka koji Vlada navodi. Kao i podnosilac predstavke, i Sud je mišljenja da zahtev za ispravku omogućava samo da bude ispravljena neka eventualna materijalna greška u vezi sa podacima o licu unesenom u registar. Što se tiče zakonom predviđenog brisanja podataka, iz članova 706-53-4 i 706-53-10 proističe (gornji stav 18) da je ono podleže određenim formalnim i suštinskim uslovima koji se imaju razmatrati u svetlu garancija, kojima raspolažu registrovana lica, od rizika zloupotrebe i proizvoljnosti. Sud smatra da je taj aspekt više vezan za razmatranje optužbi zasnovanih na članu 8 Konvencije. Što se ostalog tiče, Sud ima u vidu da Vlada ističe i druge prigovore o neprihvatljivosti za svaku od navedenih optužbi ; Sud će dakle u daljem tekstu razmotriti prihvatljivost svake od njih.

II. O NAVODNOM KRŠENJU ČLANA 7 KONVENCIJE

Podnosilac predstavke se žali na unošenje njegovih podataka u FIJAIS i na retroaktivnu primenu zakona od 9. marta 2004 kojim mu se nameću obaveze koje su strože od onih koje su na snazi na dan presude koja mu je izrečena, u suprotnosti sa članom 7 § 1 Konvencije koji glasi: «Niko se ne može smatrati krivim za krivično delo izvršeno činjenjem ili nečinjenjem koje, u vreme kada je izvršeno, nije predstavljalo krivično delo po unutrašnjem ili međunarodnom pravu. Isto tako, ne može se izreći stroža kazna od one koja je bila propisana u vreme kada je krivično delo izvršeno».
Vlada ulaže prigovor na osnovu nenadležnosti ratione materiae suda da postupa po toj optužbi. Po njoj, unos podataka u FIJAIS ne može predstavljati «kaznu» u smislu sudske prakse Suda tako da se član 7 tu ne može primeniti.
Vlada ne osporava činjenicu da zakon od 9. marta 2004. nije bio stupio na snagu ni u trenutku kad je delo počinjeno ni u trenutku izricanja presude podnosiocu predstavke. Ona međutim tvrdi da inkriminisana mera ne predstavlja «kaznu» u smislu te odredbe. Ona za primer navodi kriterijume na koje ukazuje Sud u svojoj sudskoj praksi, a posebno u slučajevima Welch protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva (9. februar 1995, § 27, serija A br. 307-A) i Jamil protiv Francuske (8. jun 1995, § 30, serija A br. 317-B). Iako je Sud, u slučaju Jamil, smatrao da fizička prinuda predstavlja kaznu, s obrazloženjem da ju je «izrekao represivni sud i da je cilj bio da se proizvede odvraćajući efekat», sankcija izrečena protiv g. Jamila mogla je da ima za rezultat lišavanje slobode kaznenog karaktera, (§ 32), Sud je naprotiv presudio da se mera specijalnog nadzora n može smatrati kaznom budući da ima za cilj sprečavanje izvršenja krivičnih dela (Raimondo protiv Italije, 22. februar 1994, § 43, serija A br. 281-A). Vlada smatra da je upravo takav cilj i bezbednosnih mera, među kojima i unošenje podataka u FIJAIS. Te mere se mogu definisati i kao mere društvene zaštite čiji je cilj prevencija činjenja dela u povratu od strane nekog počinioca, ili neutralizacija nekog opasnog stanja. One se navodno ne zasnivaju na krivici delinkventa, već na opasnosti koju ovaj predstavlja. Tako se unos podataka u FIJAIS vrši «kao bezbednosna mera» (član 706-53-5 ZKP) i ne predstavlja sankciju. Naime, članom 706-53-2 4^o ZKP predviđen je unos podataka nekog lica u FIJAIS i u slučaju odluke o obustavi postupka, oslobađanju zbog nedostatka dokaza ili oslobađanju od optužbe, zasnovane na članu 122-1 alineja 1 krivičnog zakonika po kome «nije krivično odgovorno lice koje je, u trenutku kad je delo počinjeno, imalo neki psihički ili neuropsihički poremećaj zbog kojeg lice nije imalo sposobnost rasuđivanja ili kontrole svojih činjenja».
Podnosilac predstavke smatra da unošenje podataka u FIJAIS povlači za sobom obavezu koju nameće tekst koji nije postojao u trenutku izricanja presude. Ta obaveza predstavlja strožu kaznu od one koja je primenjivana u trenutku kad je delo počinjeno.
Sud primećuje da su podaci podnosioca predstavke uneseni u FIJAIS nakon stupanja na snagu zakona od 9. marta 2004. Do tog unošenja je došlo posle izricanja presude protiv njega. Tom merom se obavezuje podnosilac predstavke da svakih šest meseci pruži dokaze o svojoj adresi i da prijavi svaku promenu adrese najkasnije u roku od petnaest dana.
Sud treba da utvrdi da li se unošenje podataka u FIJAIS može smatrati «kaznom» u smislu člana 7 § 1 Konvencije, ili pak predstavlja meru isključenu iz polja primene te odredbe (Ibbotson protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva, odluka Komisije od 21 oktobra 1998, br. 40146/98, i Adamson protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva (pres.), br. 42293/98, od 26. januara 1999, u vezi sa unošenjem u neki registar seksualnih delinkvenata i, mutatis mutandis, Van der Velden protiv Holandije (pres.), br. 29514/05, CEDH 2006-..., što se tiče čuvanja, od strane državnih organa, uzoraka DNK uzetih od podnosioca predstavke).
U tom pogledu Sud podseća da je pojam «kazne» iz člana 7 autonoman po svom obuhvatu, s tim da Sud ima slobodu da ide dalje od neposredno vidljivog i da sam procenjuje da li se neka posebna mera može suštinski smatrati «kaznom» u smislu te klauzule. Formulacijom člana 7 § 1, u drugoj rečenici, naznačeno je da se osnov za svako ocenjivanje postojanja neke kazne sastoji u utvrđivanju da li je predmetna mera nametnuta nakon neke presude za neki «prekršaj». I neki drugi elementi se u tom pogledu mogu smatrati relevantnim: kvalifikacija mere u unutrašnjem pravu, njena priroda i njen cilj, postupci vezani za njeno usvajanje i izvršavanje, kao i težina te mere (već navedeni slučaj Welch, §§ 27 et 28).
U konkretnom slučaju. Sud uočava pre svega da unos podataka podnosioca predstavke proističe iz presude koja mu je izrečena 30. oktobra 2003, s obzirom da se taj registar odnosi automatski na lica koja su, kao i on, osuđena na vremensku kaznu dužu od pet godina zbog nekog seksualnog delikta.
Zatim u vezi s pravnom kvalifikacijom u unutrašnjem pravu, Sud uočava da , prema Ustavnom savetu, osporavana mera ne predstavlja sankciju već «policijsku meru» i da je, u smislu nedvosmislenih odredaba člana 706-53-1 ZKP, cilj registra FIJAIS prevencija ponavljanja seksualnih ili nasilnih delikata, identifikovanje i lokalizacija njihovih počinilaca (gornji stavovi 18 et 19).
Što se tiče cilja i prirode sporne mere, Sud konstatuje da podnosilac predstavke svoju novu obavezu posmatra kaznenu. Sud, međutim, smatra da je glavni cilj te obaveze sprečavanje povrata. U tom pogledu Sud smatra da poznavanje, od strane policije ili žandarmerije, odnosno od strane pravosudnih organa, adrese osuđenih lica, činjenicom njihovog upisa u FIJAIS, sadrži element odvraćanja i da omogućava policijske istražne radnje. Obaveza koja proističe iz unosa podataka u FIJAIS ima dakle preventivan i odvraćajući cilj i ne može se posmatrati kao da predstavlja sankciju.
Osim toga, Sud uočava i da iako podnosilac predstavke rizikuje kaznu zatvora od dve godine i plaćanje novčane kazne od 30.000 evra (EUR) u slučaju neizvršavanja te obaveze, jedan drugi postupak, potpuno nezavisan od onog koji je doveo do presude koja mu je izrečena 30. oktobra 2003, mora biti pokrenut, a tokom kojeg postupka će nadležni sudija moći da oceni da li to nečinjenje ima ili nema karakter krivice (videti, a contrario, navođeni slučaj Welch, § 14).
Najzad, što se tiče strogosti sporne mere, Sud podseća da taj element nije sam po sebi odlučujući (videti navođeni slučaj Welch, § 32). Sud smatra da u svakom slučaju obaveza podnošenja dokaza o adresi svakih šest meseci i prijavljivanja promene adrese u roku od najviše petnaest dana, iako u trajanju od trideset godina, ne dostiže takvu težinu zbog koje bi se ta obaveza mogla smatrati «kaznom».
U svetlu svih tih stavova, Sud smatra da unos podataka u FIJAIS i obaveza koja iz njega proističe ne predstavljaju «kaznu» u smislu člana 7 § 1 Konvencije, i da se moraju posmatrati kao preventivna mera koja je takve prirode da se načelo neretroaktivnosti izraženo u toj odredbi na takvu meru ne primenjuje.
Stoga treba odbaciti optužbu zasnovanu na članu 7 Konvencije kao nespojivu ratione materiae sa odredbama Konvencije, primenom člana 35 §§ 3 i 4 Konvencije.

III. O NAVODNOM KRŠENJU ČLANA 8 KONVENCIJE

Optužba zasnovana na članu 7 takođe je bila predmet pitanja koje je Sud postavio u vezi sa članom 8 Konvencije. Ta odredba, u svojim relevantnim delovima, glasi:

1. Svako ima pravo na poštovanje svog privatnog života (...)

2. Javne vlasti neće se mešati u vršenje ovog prava sem ako to nije u skladu sa zakonom i neophodno u demokratskom društvu u interesu nacionalne bezbednosti, javne bezbednosti ili ekonomske dobrobiti zemlje, radi sprečavanja nereda ili kriminala, zaštite zdravlja ili morala, ili radi zaštite prava i sloboda drugih.

A. Navodi strana

Vlada ističe pre svega da podnosilac predstavke nije izričito izrekao optužbu o kršenju člana 8 Konvencije u svojoj prvobitnoj predstavci. Ukoliko Sud želi da ovaj postupak razmatra po merilima člana 8 Konvencije, Vlada smatra da se francuski državni organi nisu ogrešili o taj tekst.
Vlada takođe ističe da se prinuda koja za podnosioca predstavke proističe iz upisa njegovih podataka u FIJAIS ne može smatrati mešanjem u njegov privatni i porodični život jer je ograničena na zahteve predviđene članom 706-53-5 ZKP (gornji stav 18).
Vlada ističe da sporna mera ima svoje zakonsko utemeljenje, zakon od 9. marta 2004 koji predviđa posledice unošenja podataka u FIJAIS po zainteresovana lica. Njen cilj je odbrana javnog poretka i prevencija krivičnih dela, posebno onih čije su žrtve maloletna lica (član 706-53-1 ZKP).
Najzad, Vlada predlaže da se izvagaju interes društva da predupredi seksualne delikte i težinu ugrožavanja prava podnosioca predstavke na poštovanje njegovog privatnog života. Po Vladi, registar FIJAIS je osnovan u okviru postupnog uspostavljanja pravnog režima primerenog seksualnim deliktima, a koji nalazi opravdanje u relativno nedavnom sticanju svesti o specifičnosti tih delikata. Ta specifičnost proističe, s jedne strane, iz činjenice da su njihovi počinioci često lica s poremećajima ličnosti, što je stvarni činilac povratâ, a s druge strane iz posebne patnje koju takvi delikti nanose žrtvama, posebno kad su žrtve maloletna lica u trenutku činjenja delikta. Tako su državni organi zajednički uspostavili represivne i preventivne mere. Osnivanje registra FIJAIS, u tom kontekstu, imali je za cilj da popuni praznine preventivnih instrumenata u posebno teškim slučajevima seksualnih delikata. Vlada dodaje da iz sudske prakse Suda proističe da Sud ne osporava državama pravo, u cilju prevencije delikata, da prikupljaju i memorišu u dosijeima podatke o licima pod uslovom da «odgovarajuće i dovoljne garancije [postoje] protiv zloupotreba» (Leander protiv Švedske, 26. mart 1987, § 60, serija A br. 116).
U konkretnom slučaju, podnosilac predstavke je navodno uživao sve garancije koje nudi zakon. Njega je o unošenju u registar njegovih podataka izvestio pravosudni organ, a kontrola dosijea je poverena jednom sudiji. Registrovanje podataka se odnosi samo na počinioce teških seksualnih delikata navedenih u članu 706-47 navedenog zakonika i samo takva dela dozvoljavaju automatizovani unos podataka.
Što se tiče ostalih garancija koje nudi zakon, Vlada podseća da trajanje čuvanja podataka zavisi od težine predmetnih delikata: dvadeset ili trideset godina. Reč je o maksimalnom trajanju a zainteresovana lica mogu od FIJAIS-a tražiti brisanje podataka koja se na njih odnose. Taj zahtev se može podnositi trima organima: Glavnom tužiocu, sudiji zaduženom za slobode i za lišavanje slobode i predsedniku istražnog veća. Taj trostruki pristup predstavlja, prema Vladi, trostruku garanciju. U konkretnom slučaju, unošenje presude izrečene podnosiocu predstavke u krivični dosije čini neprihvatljivim zahtev za brisanjem unosa u FIJAIS. Podnosilac predstavke ipak ima na raspolaganju mogućnost da podnese zahtev za sudsku rehabilitaciju kojom se iz krivične evidencije briše presuda. Osim toga, registru FIJAIS pristup imaju isključivo određeni organi s obavezom čuvanja poverljivosti, i to u precizno utvrđenim okolnostima. Najzad, registar FIJAIS i ostale evidencije nisu ni u kakvoj međusobnoj vezi.
Vlada zaključuje da su garancije vezane za unos podataka u FIJAIS takve taj unos podataka predstavlja mešanje nužno u demokratskom društvu u smislu člana 8 § 2 Konvencije.
Podnosilac predstavke smatra da podaci sadržani u registru nisu namenjeni objavljivanju i da ograničenja koja nameće zakonski tekst nisu beznačajna već da ograničavaju slobodu kretanja osuđenog.

B. Ocena Suda

Treba podsetiti da, kao suveren u pravnom kvalifikovanju predmetnih činjenica, Sud ne obavezuju kvalifikacije koje tim činjenicama pripisuju podnosioci predstavki ili vlade. U skladu s načelom jura novit curia, Sud može po službenoj dužnosti razmatrati neku optužbu sa stanovišta nekog člana ili nekog stava na koje se strane nisu pozvale. Drugim rečima, neku optužbu karakterišu činjenice na koje optužba ukazuje a ne jednostavno navedena pravna sredstva ili argumenti (Guerra i ostali protiv Italije, 19. februara 1998, § 44, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998I, o Berktay protiv Turske, 22493/93, § 168, 1. mart 2001.). Stoga, dakle, prigovor Vlade o neprihvatljivosti mora biti odbačen. Sud konstatuje da ta optužba nije na očigledan način neosnovana u smislu člana 35 § 3 Konvencije. Sud osim toga ističe da se na tu optužbu ne odnosi ni jedan drugi motiv neprihvatljivosti. Stoga se dakle ima proglasiti prihvatljivom.
Što se ostalog tiče, Sud ističe da registar FIJAIS sadrži podatke koji se odnose na privatni život podnosioca predstavke. Taj registar je u nadležnosti Ministarstva pravde i pod kontrolom je sudije koji upravlja krivičnom evidencijom. Sud ističe da nije na njemu u ovom trenutku da špekuliše o tome da li jeste ili nije osetljiv karakter prikupljenih elemenata niti o eventualnim nepovoljnim posledicama po podnosioca predstavke. Po njegovoj sudskoj praksi, memorisanje od strane nekog državnog organa podataka o privatnom životu nekog pojedinca predstavlja mešanje u smislu člana 8. Naknadno korišćenje memorisanih podataka od manjeg je značaja (videti, mutatis mutandis, prethodno navedeni slučaj Leander, § 48, i Kopp protiv Švajcarske, 25. marta 1998, § 53, Zbirka 1998-II). Tačnije, već je ocenjeno da je obaveza – za lica osuđena za seksualni delikt – da policiji dostavljaju svoje ime i prezime, datum rođenja, adresu ili promenu adrese, obuhvaćena članom 8 § 1 Konvencije (prethodno navedeni slučaj Adamson).
Sud uočava da strane ne osporavaju da je sporno mešanje predviđeno zakonom i da ono ima legitiman cilj odbrane javnog poretka i prevenciju krivičnih dela (ibidem). Zato Sud mora da razmotri nužnost mešanja u pogledu zahteva Konvencije.
Na nacionalnim organima je da, pre svega, kažu gde je ona prava ravnoteža koju treba postići u nekom datom slučaju pre nego što Sud pristupi ocenjivanju u poslednjoj instanci, pa je izvesna margina za procenu ostavljena u načelu državama u tom okviru. Veličina te margine promenljiva je i zavisi od izvesnog broja elemenata, konkretno od prirode aktivnosti koje su u igri i od ciljeva ograničavanja (Smith i Grady protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva, 33985/96 et 33986/96, § 88, CEDH 1999-VI).
Stoga, kad je reč o nekom posebno značajnom aspektu postojanja ili identiteta nekog pojedinca, margina za procenu od strane države uglavnom je dosta uska.
Zaštita podataka lične prirode igra suštinsku ulogu za uživanje prava na poštovanje privatnog i porodičnog života garantovanog članom 8 Konvencije. Unutrašnje zakonodavstvo mora, dakle, obezbeđivati odgovarajuće garancije radi sprečavanja bilo kakvog korišćenja podataka lične prirode koje ne bi bilo u skladu sa garancijama predviđenim u tom članu (videti, mutatis mutandis, Z protiv Finske, 25. februar 1997, § 95, Zbirka 1997-I). Shodno onome što je izrekao u presudi i Marper protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva ([Veliko veće], br. 30562/04 i 30566/04, § 103), Sud smatra da se neophodnost raspolaganja takvim garancijama oseća pogotovo kad je reč o zaštiti podataka lične prirode koji su predmet automatizovane obrade, a posebno kad se ti podaci koriste u policijske svrhe. Unutrašnje pravo mora posebno obezbediti da ti podaci budu relevantni i da ih ne bude više nego što je potrebno radi ostvarenja ciljeva zbog kojih su i registrovani, i da budu čuvani u obliku koji omogućava identifikovanje odnosnih lica tokom perioda koji ne sme biti duži od onog koji je neophodan s obzirom na namenu zbog koje su registrovani (videti gornje stavove 27 i 28, preambulu i član 5 Konvencije o zaštiti podataka i načelo 7 preporuke R (87) 15 Komiteta ministara čiji je cilj uređivanje korišćenja podataka lične prirode u policijskom sektoru). Unutrašnje pravo takođe treba da sadrži garancije kojima se delotvorno štite podaci lične prirode od neovlašćenih i nezakonitih korisnika.
Sud ne može sumnjati u ciljeve prevencije nekog dosijea kakav je onaj u koji su uneti podaci podnosioca predstavke, osuđen na petnaest godina zatvora zbog silovanja maloletnice. Cilj tog dosijea, kako je Sud već naglasio, jeste da se preduprede krivična dela i posebno borba protiv činjenja dela u povratu, i u takvom slučajevima, olakšavanje identikovanja njihovih počinilaca. Seksualna zlostavljanja predstavljaju neosporno odvratne delikte koji žrtve čine ranjivim. Deca i ostala ranjiva lica imaju pravo na zaštitu od strane države, u obliku delotvorne prevencije koja ih štiti od tako teških oblika mešanja u suštinske aspekte njihovog privatnog života (Stubbings i ostali protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva, 22. oktobar 1996, § 64, Zbirka 1996-IV).
Istovremeno, krivične politike u Evropi evoluiraju i, uz represiju, sve veći značaj pridaju reintegracijskom cilju vremenske kazne, posebno pred kraj neke duge zatvorske kazne (Dickson protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva [Veliko veće], br. 44362/04, § 75, CEDH 2007-V). Uspešna reintegracija pretpostavlja posebno prevenciju povrata (videti izveštaj Komesara za ljudska prava Saveta Evrope, naveden u presudi Léger protiv Francuske, br. 19324/02, § 49).
U konkretnom slučaju, podnosilac predstavke je bio automatski upisan u registar u skladu s prelaznim odredbama zakona iz 2004, i s obzirom na zločin zbog koga je pravosnažno osuđen. O tom unosu njegovih podataka u registar bio je na propisan način obavešten i bio je upoznat s obavezama koje su mu u tom smislu nametnute.
Što se tiče njegovih obaveza da dostavlja dokaze o svojoj adresi svakih šest meseci kao i o promenama adrese pod pretnjom kazne zatvora i novčane kazne, Sud je već izneo mišljenje da to ne predstavlja problem sa stanovišta člana 8 Konvencije (navedeni slučaj Adamson).
Što se tiče trajanja čuvanja podataka, Sud konstatuje da ono iznosi dvadeset ili trideset godina, u zavisnosti od presude.
Kako to ističe i Vlada, reč je o maksimalnom trajanju. Iako je u konkretnom slučaju znatno jer iznosi trideset godina, Sud primećuje da se brisanje podataka vrši po pravu po isteku tog roka , a koji istek se računa od trenutka kad presuda koja za sobom povlači unos podataka u registar prestane da proizvodi bilo kakav efekat. Sud takođe ističe da zainteresovano lice može podneti zahtev za brisanje podataka Glavnom tužiocu ukoliko čuvanje podataka koji se na to lice odnose više nije relevantno s obzirom na namenu tog registra, a s obzirom na prirodu delikta, na starost lica u trenutku kad je delo počinjeno, na vreme koje je proteklo od tada i imajući u vidu njegovu sadašnju ličnost (gornji stav 18, član 706-53-10 ZKP). Na odluku tužioca može se uložiti žalba sudiji zaduženom za slobode i lišavanje slobode, a zatim pred predsednikom istražnog veća.
Sud smatra da taj sudski postupak brisanja podataka obezbeđuje nezavisnu kontrolu opravdanosti čuvanja podataka na osnovu preciznih kriterijuma (navedeni slučaj i Marper, § 119) i da pruža dovoljne i adekvatne garancije poštovanja privatnog života s obzirom na težinu delikata na osnovu kojih su podaci uneti u registar. Istina je da bi memorisanje podataka na tako dug period moglo da predstavlja problem sa stanovišta člana 8 Konvencije, ali Sud konstatuje da će podnosilac predstavke, u svakom slučaju, imati konkretnu mogućnost da podnese zahtev za brisanje memorisanih podataka od dana kad presuda na osnovu koje su podaci uneseni u registar prestane da proizvodi sve svoje efekte. U tim uslovima, Sud smatra da trajanje čuvanja podataka nije nesrazmerno s obzirom na cilj kome se teži memorisanjem tih podataka.
Što se tiče modaliteta korišćenja tog registra i državnih organa koji imaju pristup tom registru, Sud konstatuje da je njihov krug proširen u više navrata i da više nije ograničen samo na pravosudne organe već da od sada i upravni organi mogu da mu pristupe (član 706-53-7 ZKP, gornji stav 18). Mora se konstatovati da je uvid u podatke omogućen isključivo organima vezanim obavezom poverljivosti i u vrlo određenim okolnostima. Osim toga, ovaj konkretan slučaj nije pogodan za razmatranje in concreto pitanja otvaranja mogućnosti uvida u registar od strane upravnih organa.
U zaključku Sud smatra da unošenje podataka u FIJAIS, onako kako je primenjeno na konkretnog podnosioca zahteva, pokazuje dobru ravnotežu između privatnih interesa i konkurentskih javnih interesa koji su u igri, i da tužena država nije prekoračila svoju marginu procenjivanja koja je prihvatljiva u ovoj oblasti. Stoga u konkretnom slučaju nije bilo kršenja člana 8 Konvencije.

IV. O OSTALIM NAVODNIM KRŠENJIMA KONVENCIJE

Pozivajući se na članove 6, 13, 14 i 17 Konvencije, podnosilac predstavke, koji tvrdi da je nevin, žali se na način na koji je vršena istraga po njegovom predmetu, na odbacivanje njegovih molbi za određene akcije i veštačenja od strane istražnog sudije, kao i na odbijanje njegovog zahteva za reviziju krivičnih presuda od strane revizione komisije. U pismu od 3. novembra 2005. on se takođe žali na odbijanje molbe za suspenziju kazne i tvrdi da njegovo zdravstveno stanje nije spojivo s boravkom u zatvoru. Najzad u pismu od 5. decembra 2005. podnosilac predstavke se poziva na član 3 Konvencije tvrdeći da je žrtva torture činjenicom da se nalazi u zatvoru.
Što se tiče tih optužbi, a imajući u vidu sve elemente kojima raspolaže, i u meri u kojoj je bio nadležan da razmatra formulisana tvrđenja, Sud nije uočio ništa što bi izgledalo kao kršenje prava i sloboda garantovanih navedenim odredbama. Sud stoga smatra da su te optužbe neosnovane u smislu člana 35 § 3 Konvencije i da se moraju odbaciti primenom člana 35 § 4.

IZ TIH RAZLOGA, SUD, JEDNOGLASNO,

Proglašava predstavku prihvatljivom u pogledu optužbi na osnovu člana 8 Konvencije i neprihvatljivom za ostatak;

Izriče da nije bilo kršenja člana 8 Konvencije.

Sačinjeno na francuskom jeziku, a potom otpravljeno u pismenom obliku 17. decembra 2009, primenom pravila 77 §§ 2 i 3 Pravilnika o radu Suda.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen

Sekretar Suda Predsednik

___________________________________
Prevod presude preuzet sa https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/

Ovaj prevod je nastao uz podršku Fiducijarnog fonda za ljudska prava Saveta Evrope (www.coe.int/humanrightstrustfund ).

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF GARDEL v. FRANCE

(Application no. 16428/05)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

17 December 2009

FINAL

17/03/2010

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.

In the case of Gardel v. France, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Jean-Paul Costa,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2009,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 16428/05) against the French Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a French national, Mr Fabrice Gardel (“the applicant”), on 30 April 2005.

2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr P. Souchal, a lawyer practising in Nancy. The French Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs E. Belliard, Director of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

3. The applicant complained, in particular, of his placement on the national register of sex offenders following his conviction. He relied on Article 7 of the Convention.

4. On 1 October 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5. The applicant was born in 1962 and is currently in prison in Montmédy.

6. Following a complaint lodged on 18 February 1997 by the parents of a young girl, S., the applicant was charged with the rape and sexual assault of a minor under 15 years of age by a person in a position of authority.

7. During the investigation he made several requests for additional investigative measures to be taken, which were refused by the investigating authorities.

8. On 15 April 2003 an investigating judge at the Bar-le-Duc tribunal de grande instance issued an order discontinuing the proceedings in respect of the sexual assault charges, as the limitation period had expired. The judge committed the applicant for trial on a charge of rape of a minor under the age of 15 by a person in a position of authority over the victim.

9. On 30 October 2003 the Meuse Assize Court sentenced the applicant to fifteen years’ imprisonment and stripped him of all his civil, civic and family rights for ten years.

10. The applicant did not appeal against that decision but lodged an application for a retrial, producing a number of documents which he claimed placed his guilt in doubt.

11. On 9 March 2004 Law no. 2004-204 established the national automated register of sex offenders (“the Sex Offenders Register”).

12. On 11 April 2005 the Criminal Cases Review Board rejected the applicant’s application for a retrial.

13. On 28 February 2005 the applicant applied to the Créteil Post‑sentencing Court to have his sentence suspended. On 17 June 2005 the application was refused on the grounds that, according to the expert medical reports, “the applicant’s survival is not in doubt, nor is his state of health incompatible in the long term with detention. Therefore, as matters stand, he does not meet the requirements of Article 720-1-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is not eligible for the measure in question”. The court pointed out that the applicant’s sentence was due to run until 27 May 2019 and that his criminal record mentioned another conviction for sexual abuse of a minor under the age of 15 by a person in authority (a sentence of six years’ imprisonment and a judicial and social supervision order imposed by the Nancy Court of Appeal on 29 August 2002 for sexual assault of a minor). The court also took into consideration medical reports according to which the applicant suffered from congenital heart disease which made any physical activity impossible. The report advocated his placement under an enhanced prison regime with an individual cell, no exercise or physical activity, a salt-free diet and regular medication. The court also referred to a psychiatric expert report from November 2004 according to which the applicant’s psychological development “appears very limited in so far as he has failed to reflect on his own conduct. He has expressed no feelings of guilt or responsibility for the offences which he denies committing. A course of psychotherapy would help him develop more satisfactory relationships in the future with the people he comes into contact with”.

14. On 13 October 2005 the post-sentencing division of the Paris Court of Appeal upheld this judgment.

15. On 22 November 2005 the applicant was informed by a police officer from l’Haÿ-les-Roses police station that his name was being entered in the Sex Offenders Register on account of his conviction by the Meuse Assize Court, in accordance with the transitional provisions of the above‑mentioned Law of 9 March 2004. The official notification was worded as follows:

“I, the undersigned, Mr Fabrice Gardel, hereby acknowledge that I have today been notified of my inclusion in the Sex Offenders Register on account of the [sentence] of imprisonment imposed on 30 October 2003 by the Meuse Assize Court, and that I am accordingly required, under Article 706-53-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to:

1. provide proof of my address: ...

Once a year either to the authority managing the register (the Ministry of Justice) ... or to my local police or gendarmerie station ..., during the month in which my birthday falls or during the month of January if my date of birth is not known or not established. ...

I expressly acknowledge having been informed that:

I have been finally convicted of an offence carrying a sentence of ten years or more. Accordingly, I am required to provide proof of my address by reporting in person every six months. ...

I take note of the fact that if I leave the country my obligation to report in person will be suspended for the duration of my stay abroad but that I must continue to provide proof of my address by means of a registered letter with recorded delivery to the authority managing the Sex Offenders Register ... accompanied by documents certifying my address and signed by the local consular authority.

2. declare any change of address within fifteen days at the latest, in the same manner.

I acknowledge having been informed:

(i) that I must provide proof of my address for the first time within fifteen days of this notification, unless the latter is issued less than two months before the first day of the month of my birth, referred to above, or I am already required to provide proof of my address on an annual basis;

(ii) that failure to comply with these obligations is punishable by a term of two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros;

(iii) that any breach of these obligations will lead to an alert being issued to the judicial authorities and the police or gendarmerie which may result in my inclusion on the list of wanted persons and may be accompanied by a criminal prosecution;

(iv) that, pursuant to Article R. 53-8-13, the proof of address and declaration of change of address provided for by Article 706-53-5 shall take the form of any document less than three months old in my name which gives proof of my home address, such as a bill or invoice;

(v) that if the document produced refers to the address of another person, it must be accompanied by a statement written and signed by the latter confirming that I am staying at that address.

I further acknowledge having been informed that I have the following rights:

(i) under the Data Protection Act and Article 706-53-9, I may obtain a copy of all the information concerning me in the register by applying to the public prosecutor in whose district I am resident;

(ii) if the decision forming the basis for my placement on the register was issued by a foreign judicial authority, I may apply to the public prosecutor at the Nantes tribunal de grande instance to have the information in the register rectified or deleted or to have the frequency of reporting reduced to once a year, in accordance with Articles R 53-8-27 et seq.”

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

16. The national automated register of sex offenders (“the Sex Offenders Register” – FIJAIS), which was established in 2004, is a criminal identification register similar to the national fingerprint database (FAED), the national genetic database (FNAEG) and the national criminal records (CJN), the last of which have been in existence the longest. An information paper on police registers tabled before the National Assembly on 24 March 2009 noted an upsurge in the number of such registers. The working party chaired by Mr Alain Bauer noted that there were around forty-five in 2008 compared with thirty-four in 2006, and that another dozen or so were “in the pipeline”.

The Ministry of Justice is responsible for and manages the Sex Offenders Register. It is maintained by the National Criminal Records Department in Nantes, under the supervision of the judge in charge of the national criminal records.

A. The Sex Offenders Register

17. The national automated register of perpetrators of sexual crimes was established by Law no. 2004-204 of 9 March 2004 on adaptation of the justice system to changing trends in criminal offending. It is aimed at preventing repeat sexual offences, making it easier to identify offenders and allowing them to be traced quickly at any time.

A series of transitional measures lay down detailed arrangements for the placement on the register of persons who committed such offences prior to the entry into force of the above-mentioned Law. The provisions are applicable to persons who committed such offences before the date of promulgation of the Law but were the subject, after that date, of one of the decisions referred to in Article 706-53-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 18 below). They can also be applied to persons serving a custodial sentence before the promulgation of the Law (at the request of the public prosecutor).

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”)

18. The relevant provisions of the CCP read as follows:

Article 706-47

“The provisions of this Title shall apply to proceedings concerning the murder, whether or not premeditated, of a minor preceded or accompanied by rape, torture or acts of barbarity or for the offences of sexual assault or sexual abuse of a minor, living on the immoral earnings of a minor or paying a minor for sexual services ...

These provisions shall also apply to proceedings concerning the crime of murder, whether or not premeditated, accompanied by torture or acts of barbarity, the crimes of torture or acts of barbarity and the crime of murder, whether or not premeditated, committed as a repeat offence.”

Article 706-53-1

“The national automated register of perpetrators of sexual or violent crimes shall constitute a database of personal information held by the Criminal Records Department under the authority of the Minister of Justice and the supervision of a judge. In order to prevent repeat offences of the kind referred to in Article 706-47 and to facilitate identification of the perpetrators of such offences, the information referred to in Article 706-53-2 shall be gathered, stored and communicated to authorised persons in accordance with the arrangements laid down in this Chapter.”

Article 706-53-2

“Subject to the provisions of the last paragraph of this Article, and in so far as they relate to one or more of the offences referred to in Article 706-47, details of an individual’s identity and home address or successive home addresses and, where applicable, other residences shall be entered in the register where the individual concerned has been the subject of:

1. A conviction, whether or not final, including conviction in absentia, or a declaration of guilt accompanied by an order dispensing him or her from sentence or adjourning sentence;

2. A decision, whether or not final, delivered under sections 8, 15, 15-1, 16, 16 bis and 28 of Ordinance no. 45-174 of 2 February 1945 on juvenile delinquency;

3. An agreed penalty scheme provided for by Article 41-2 of this Code, the implementation of which has been certified by the public prosecutor;

4. A decision discontinuing the proceedings or discharging or acquitting the person concerned on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 122-1 of the Criminal Code;

5. A criminal charge, accompanied by a court supervision order, where the investigating judge has ordered the entry of the decision in the register;

6. A decision of the same kind as those referred to above which was delivered by a foreign court or judicial authority and which, under the terms of an international convention or agreement, was notified to the French authorities or was enforced in France following the transfer of the convicted person.

The register shall also contain information concerning the judicial decision forming the basis for placement on the register and information on the nature of the offence. The decisions referred to in points 1 and 2 shall be entered in the register on delivery.

Decisions concerning the offences referred to in Article 706-47 which carry a sentence less than or equal to five years’ imprisonment shall not be entered in the register, except where expressly ordered by the court or, in the case of points 3 and 4, by the public prosecutor.”

Article 706-53-4

“Without prejudice to application of the provisions of Articles 706-53-9 and 706‑53‑10, the information referred to in Article 706-53-2 concerning an individual shall be deleted from the register on the death of the person concerned or on expiry of the periods laid down below, calculated from the date on which all the decisions entered in the register cease to have effect:

1. A period of thirty years in the case of a serious crime or a major offence carrying a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment;

2. A period of twenty years in all other cases.

The information in question shall not be deleted as the result of an amnesty or rehabilitation, or under the rules relating to the removal of convictions from the criminal records.

This information may not, by itself, be used as evidence of recidivism.

Information entered in the register under points 1, 2 and 5 of Article 706-53-2 shall be deleted from the register in the event of a final decision discontinuing the proceedings, a final discharge or a final acquittal. Information entered under point 5 shall also be deleted in the event of the cessation or lifting of the court supervision order.”

Article 706-53-5

“All persons whose identity is recorded in the register shall be bound, as a security measure, by the obligations set forth in this Article.

The person concerned shall be required, by means of a registered letter with recorded delivery addressed to the authority managing the register, or by registered letter with recorded delivery addressed to the local police or gendarmerie station, or by reporting in person, to:

1. provide proof of his or her address once a year;

2. declare any change of address within fifteen days at the latest.

If the person concerned has been finally convicted of a serious crime or a major offence carrying a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment, he or she must provide proof of address every six months by reporting to the local police or gendarmerie station or the gendarmerie or police headquarters in his or her département of residence, or to any other department designated by the prefecture.

Failure to comply with the obligations laid down in this Article shall be punishable by two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros.”

Article 706-53-6

“Any person whose identity has been recorded in the register shall be informed accordingly by the judicial authority, either in person or by registered letter to the last reported address.

The person concerned shall be informed on that occasion of his or her obligations under Article 706-53-5 and the penalties he or she faces in the event of failure to comply.

Where the person concerned is in detention, the information provided for by this Article shall be provided on his or her final release or prior to the first measure relaxing the conditions of the sentence.”

Article 706-53-7
as amended by section 15 of Law no. 2008-174 of 25 February 2008

“The information contained in the register shall be directly accessible, via a secure telecommunications system, to:

1. The judicial authorities;

2. The criminal investigation police, in the context of proceedings concerning the crimes of deliberately endangering human life, abduction or kidnapping or one of the offences referred to in Article 706-47, and for the purpose of taking the measures provided for in Articles 706-53-5 and 706-53-8;

3. The prefects and State administrative authorities listed in the decree provided for by Article 706-53-12, for the purposes of administrative decisions concerning recruitment, posting, authorisation, approval or permission in relation to activities or professions involving contact with minors and for the purpose of supervising the carrying-on of such activities or professions. ...

The information in the register shall also be made available to mayors and presidents of the département councils and regional councils, via the prefects, for the purposes of the administrative decisions referred to in point 3 relating to activities and professions involving contact with minors and for the purpose of supervising the carrying-on of such activities or professions.”

Article 706-53-8

“In the manner specified in the decree provided for by Article 706-53-12, the authority managing the register shall inform the Ministry of the Interior directly of any new entry in the register or change of address, or if a person on the register has not provided proof of his or her address within the prescribed period. The Ministry shall forward the information without delay to the competent police or gendarmerie department.

The police or gendarmerie may conduct all relevant checks and lodge whatever requests are necessary with the public authorities with a view to verifying or tracing the person’s address.

If it transpires that the person concerned is no longer at the address indicated, the public prosecutor shall enter his or her name on the list of wanted persons.”

Article 706-53-9

“Persons who furnish proof of their identity shall be provided with all the information concerning them in the register, on application to the public prosecutor at the tribunal de grande instance for their place of residence.”

Article 706-53-10
as amended by the Law of 5 March 2007

“Persons whose identity is recorded in the register may request the public prosecutor to rectify or order the deletion of the information concerning them if the information is inaccurate or it is no longer necessary to conserve it in view of the purpose of the register, regard being had to the nature of the offence, the age of the person concerned when it was committed, the interval that has elapsed and the current personality of the person concerned.

A request for information to be deleted shall be inadmissible where the information concerned (repealed by section 43 of Law no. 2007-297 of 5 March 2007, with effect from 7 March 2008) ‘remains in Bulletin no. 1 of the criminal record of the person concerned or’ concerns judicial proceedings which are still pending (section 43 of Law no. 2007-297 of 5 March 2007), ‘in so far as the person concerned has not been rehabilitated or the measure giving rise to the entry in the register has not been deleted from Bulletin no. 1’.

If the public prosecutor does not order the rectification or deletion of the information, the person concerned may apply for this purpose to the liberties and detention judge. An appeal shall lie against the latter’s decision to the President of the Investigation Division.

Before ruling on the request for rectification or deletion, the public prosecutor, the liberties and detention judge and the President of the Investigation Division may order whatever checks they deem necessary, including an expert medical report on the person concerned. If the information in the register concerns a serious crime or a major offence carrying a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and committed against a minor, no decision to delete the information may be taken in the absence of such an expert report. ...”

Article 706-53-12

“The detailed arrangements for application of the provisions of this Chapter shall be laid down by decree of the Conseil d’Etat after consultation of the National Data Protection Commission.

The decree shall specify, in particular, the circumstances in which the register shall record the enquiries relating to it and the occasions when it was consulted.”

Article R53-8-34

“A record shall be kept in the register for three years of information concerning entries and enquiries relating to it, specifying the status of the person or authority making the entry or enquiry.

This information shall be accessible only to the judge in charge of the department maintaining the register or to persons to whom he or she gives express permission.

Statistics may be compiled on the basis of this information.”

2. Case-law of the Constitutional Council

19. In its ruling no. 2004-492 DC of 2 March 2004, the Constitutional Council held as follows:

“... the recording of a person’s identity in the [Sex Offenders Register] ... is designed ... to prevent repeat offences of this kind and to facilitate the identification of the perpetrators of such offences. It follows that placement on the register is not a sanction but a public-order measure.” (§ 74)

The Constitutional Council further held, with regard to the entry of information in the register and its consultation and use:

“... regard being had firstly to the safeguards provided by the conditions on the use and consultation of the register and the fact that the power to enter or delete personal data rested with the judicial authority, and secondly to the seriousness of the offences giving rise to the entry of personal data in the register and the rate of reoffending with this type of offence, the impugned provisions were such as to reconcile respect for private life and the protection of public order in a manner that clearly struck a fair balance.” (§ 87)

Lastly, it held:

“... the requirement for persons on the register to give periodic notice of their home address or the address where they are resident does not constitute a sanction, but rather a public-order measure aimed at preventing reoffending and facilitating the identification of offenders. The very purpose of the register makes it necessary to check the addresses of the persons concerned on an ongoing basis. The burden imposed on them in order to ensure that such checks are carried out does not constitute a non-essential [measure] for the purposes of Article 9 of the 1789 Declaration ...” (§ 91)

3. Case-law of the Court of Cassation

20. In a judgment of the Criminal Division of 12 March 2008, the Court of Cassation ruled on the nature of placement on the register (see also Cass. crim. 31 October 2006, Bull. crim. no. 267). It held as follows:

“Whereas ... in ordering placement on the Sex Offenders Register, the Court of Appeal accurately applied section 216 of the Law of 9 March 2004, according to which the provisions concerning placement on the register apply to offences committed before the date of promulgation of the Law. This section is not in breach of the Convention provisions relied on, as placement on the Sex Offenders Register, which is merely a security measure and not a penalty, is not subject to the principle prohibiting the retrospective application of more severe provisions of substantive law. ...”

The Court of Cassation has upheld the automatic nature of placement on the register in the case of offenders sentenced to more than five years’ imprisonment (Cass. crim. 16 January 2008).

4. Supervisory working party on police and gendarmerie registers

21. In December 2008 this working party submitted a report to the Minister of the Interior, the Overseas Departments and Territories and the Territorial Authorities entitled: “Tightening procedures to improve the protection of freedoms”. According to the report, 20,222 names had been entered in the Sex Offenders Register when it was established in June 2005; by October 2008 the number of entries was 43,408.

B. The automated national criminal records

1. General provisions

22. Articles 768 to 781 of the CCP deal with the operation of the national criminal records. These record convictions imposed by the criminal courts, as well as some commercial, administrative and disciplinary convictions which entail incapacity. A person’s criminal record is divided into three headings. The information contained in the criminal record is provided in the form of bulletins.

Bulletin no. 1 (Article 774 CCP) records all the files in the criminal record, in other words all the person’s convictions. It may be issued only to the judicial authorities.

Bulletin no. 2 (Article 775 CCP) contains most of the convictions for criminal offences with the exception, in particular, of youth convictions, foreign rulings, convictions for minor offences and suspended sentences once the probationary period has expired. A request can be made to the judge for a conviction not to be entered in Bulletin no. 2 (although it will remain in Bulletin no. 1). This bulletin is made available only to certain administrative and military authorities (prefects, military authorities, heads of public companies, etc.) on specific grounds.

Bulletin no. 3 (Article 777 CCP) records the most serious convictions for major offences, and especially custodial sentences of over two years. This bulletin is the only one of which the person concerned may obtain a copy.

2. The rehabilitation procedure

23. The Criminal Code provides for a rehabilitation procedure for convicted individuals, enabling a conviction to be deleted from the criminal records before expiry of the statutory period (forty years). Article 133-1 of that Code states that rehabilitation erases the conviction.

24. Article 133-13 lays down the conditions for automatic rehabilitation:

Article 133-13

“A convicted individual who has not been the subject of a further criminal conviction within the periods set out below shall be automatically rehabilitated:

...

3. In the case of a single prison sentence not exceeding ten years or multiple prison sentences not exceeding five years in total, after a period of ten years calculated from the date on which the sentence ends or from the date of expiry of the limitation period.

...”

25. The CCP lays down the arrangements governing the judicial rehabilitation procedure:

Article 785, first paragraph

“During the lifetime of the convicted person, an application for rehabilitation may be made to the courts only by the person concerned or, if he or she is disqualified, by his or her legal representative. In the event of the person’s death and where the statutory conditions are met, the application may be pursued by his or her spouse, ascendants or descendants or may even be lodged by them, within one year of the person’s death.”

Article 786
as amended by Law no. 2004-204 of 9 March 2004 (entry into force 1 January 2005)

“The application for rehabilitation may be made only after five years in the case of persons convicted of a serious crime ...

This period shall be counted ... in the case of persons who have received a custodial sentence, from the date of their final release or, in accordance with the provisions of Article 733, third paragraph, the date of their conditional release where the latter was not revoked subsequently ...”

26. The rules governing the removal of an offence from the criminal records are as follows:

Article 769

“... Files concerning convictions which have been erased by an amnesty or have been overturned shall be deleted from the criminal records ... The same shall apply ... to files concerning convictions ... imposed more than forty years previously where there have been no further convictions for any category of criminal offence.

The following shall also be deleted from the criminal records:

...

8. Convictions in respect of which the offender has been granted judicial rehabilitation, where the court expressly orders the removal of the conviction from the records in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 798.”

III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW

A. Council of Europe instruments

27. The 1981 Council of Europe Convention for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data (“the Data Protection Convention”) defines “personal data” as any information relating to an identified or identifiable individual. The Convention provides, inter alia, as follows:

Preamble

“...

Considering that it is desirable to extend the safeguards for everyone’s rights and fundamental freedoms, and in particular the right to the respect for privacy, taking account of the increasing flow across frontiers of personal data undergoing automatic processing;

...

Article 5 – Quality of data

Personal data undergoing automatic processing shall be:

...

b. stored for specified and legitimate purposes and not used in a way incompatible with those purposes;

c. adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are stored;

...

e. preserved in a form which permits identification of the data subjects for no longer than is required for the purpose for which those data are stored.

Article 6 – Special categories of data

Personal data revealing racial origin, political opinions or religious or other beliefs, as well as personal data concerning health or sexual life, may not be processed automatically unless domestic law provides appropriate safeguards. ...

Article 7 – Data security

Appropriate security measures shall be taken for the protection of personal data stored in automated data files against accidental or unauthorised destruction or accidental loss as well as against unauthorised access, alteration or dissemination.”

28. Recommendation No. R (87) 15 of the Committee of Ministers regulating the use of personal data in the police sector (adopted on 17 September 1987) provides, inter alia, as follows:

Principle 2 – Collection of data

“2.1. The collection of personal data for police purposes should be limited to such as is necessary for the prevention of a real danger or the suppression of a specific criminal offence. Any exception to this provision should be the subject of specific national legislation.

...

Principle 3 – Storage of data

3.1. As far as possible, the storage of personal data for police purposes should be limited to accurate data and to such data as are necessary to allow police bodies to perform their lawful tasks within the framework of national law and their obligations arising from international law.

...

Principle 7 – Length of storage and updating of data

7.1. Measures should be taken so that personal data kept for police purposes are deleted if they are no longer necessary for the purposes for which they were stored.

For this purpose, consideration shall in particular be given to the following criteria: the need to retain data in the light of the conclusion of an inquiry into a particular case; a final judicial decision, in particular an acquittal; rehabilitation; spent convictions; amnesties; the age of the data subject, particular categories of data.”

B. Comparative law

29. In March 2004 the Senate of the French Republic published a “Comparative law study” (no. 133) concerning the treatment of sexual offences committed against minors. The report stated that “a sex-offenders register exists only in England and Wales”. In Germany, there is no Federal register but two Länder (Bavaria and Bremen) have their own registers. The Bavarian register, known as HEADS (Haft-Entlassenen-Auskunfts-Datei-Sexualstraftäter), can be accessed only by police officers and judges. In the United Kingdom, data concerning offenders sentenced to more than thirty months’ imprisonment are kept indefinitely and there is no possibility of having the data deleted (Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 82).

THE LAW

I. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES

30. The applicant complained of his placement on the Sex Offenders Register, of which he had been notified on 22 November 2005. He relied on Article 7 of the Convention. This complaint was also the subject of questions from the Court concerning Article 8 of the Convention.

31. The Government pleaded failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They pointed out, as expressly mentioned in the notification form given to the applicant, that he could have applied to the public prosecutor for a rectification under Article 706-53-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), on the basis of his allegations of a violation.

32. In the applicant’s submission, those provisions could not be construed as providing a remedy against placement on the register as such. Accordingly, that option could not be said to constitute an effective remedy against placement on the Sex Offenders Register.

33. The Court notes that a question arises concerning the effectiveness of the remedy relied on by the Government. It agrees with the applicant that an application for rectification merely enables possible substantive errors in the details of the person concerned to be corrected. As to the deletion of the information provided for by law, it is apparent from Articles 706-53-4 and 706-53-10 of the CCP (see paragraph 18 above) that this is subject to formal and substantive conditions which will need to be examined in the light of the safeguards afforded to persons placed on the register against abuse and arbitrariness. The Court considers that this aspect is more closely linked to examination of the merits of the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. It also observes that the Government raised further objections regarding the admissibility of each of the complaints; it will therefore examine their admissibility below.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONVENTION

34. The applicant complained of his placement on the Sex Offenders Register and of the retrospective application of the Law of 9 March 2004, which imposed more stringent obligations on him than those existing at the time of his conviction, in breach of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention. That provision reads as follows:

“No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.”

35. The Government contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae to examine this complaint. In their submission, placement on the Sex Offenders Register did not constitute a “penalty” within the meaning of the Court’s case-law, with the result that Article 7 was not applicable.

36. The Government did not dispute the fact that the Law of 9 March 2004 had not come into force either when the offence had been committed or when the applicant had been convicted. Nevertheless, they argued that the measure complained of did not constitute a “penalty” within the meaning of Article 7. They sought to demonstrate this by referring to the criteria established by the Court’s case-law, in particular in Welch v. the United Kingdom (9 February 1995, § 27, Series A no. 307‑A) and Jamil v. France (8 June 1995, § 30, Series A no. 317‑B). While the Court had found, in Jamil, that imprisonment in default was a penalty, on the ground that “[t]he sanction imposed on Mr Jamil was ordered by a criminal court, was intended to be deterrent and could have led to a punitive deprivation of liberty” (§ 32), it had also ruled that special supervision was not comparable to a criminal sanction since it was designed to prevent the commission of offences (they referred to Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 281‑A). In the Government’s submission, that was precisely the aim of security measures including placement on the Sex Offenders Register. They could be defined as social protection measures designed to prevent persons from reoffending or to remove a source of danger. They were based not on the offender’s guilt but on the danger he or she represented. Hence, placement on the Sex Offenders Register was carried out “as a security measure” (Article 706-53-5 of the CCP) and was not a sanction. Point 4 of Article 706-53-2 of the CCP provided for a person’s details to be entered in the register even where a decision had been given discontinuing the proceedings or discharging or acquitting the person concerned on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 122-1 of the Criminal Code, according to which “persons who, at the time of the offence, were suffering from a psychiatric or neuropsychiatric disorder which deprived them of the ability to discern or control their actions [were] not criminally liable”.

37. The applicant submitted that placement on the Sex Offenders Register entailed obligations imposed by legislation that had not existed at the time of his conviction. That amounted to a heavier penalty than the one applicable at the time the offence had been committed.

38. The Court observes that the applicant was placed on the Sex Offenders Register as a result of the entry into force of the Law of 9 March 2004. His inclusion in the register occurred after his conviction. The measure in question entailed an obligation for the applicant to provide proof of his address every six months and to report any change of address within fifteen days at the latest.

39. The Court must ascertain whether placement on the Sex Offenders Register can be considered as a “penalty” within the meaning of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention or whether it constitutes a measure falling outside the scope of that provision (see Ibbotson v. the United Kingdom, no. 40146/98, Commission decision of 21 October 1998, unreported, and Adamson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42293/98, 26 January 1999, as regards placement on a register of sex offenders and, mutatis mutandis, Van der Velden v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 29514/05, ECHR 2006‑XV, as regards the retention by the authorities of DNA samples taken from the applicant).

40. In that connection the Court reiterates that the concept of a “penalty” in Article 7 is an autonomous one and that the Court remains free to go behind appearances and assess for itself whether a particular measure amounts in substance to a “penalty” within the meaning of that provision. The wording of Article 7 § 1, second sentence, indicates that the starting‑point in any assessment of the existence of a penalty is whether the measure in question is imposed following conviction for a “criminal offence”. Other factors that may be taken into account as relevant in this connection are the characterisation of the measure in question under national law; its nature and purpose; the procedures involved in the making and implementation of the measure; and its severity (see Welch, cited above, §§ 27 and 28).

41. In the present case the Court notes first of all that the applicant’s placement on the Sex Offenders Register was indeed the result of his conviction on 30 October 2003, since placement on the register is automatic in the case of persons who, like the applicant, have been sentenced to a prison term of over five years for a sexual offence.

42. As to the legal characterisation in domestic law, the Court observes that according to the Constitutional Council the measure in question constitutes a “public-order measure” rather than a sanction and that, in accordance with the unequivocal provisions of Article 706-53-1 of the CCP, the Sex Offenders Register is designed to prevent persons who have committed sexual offences or violent crimes from reoffending and to ensure that they can be identified and traced (see paragraphs 18 and 19 above).

43. As regards the purpose and nature of the measure complained of, the Court notes that the applicant regarded the fresh obligation imposed on him as punitive. However, the Court considers that the main aim of that obligation was to prevent reoffending. In that regard, it considers that the fact that a convicted offender’s address is known to the police or gendarmerie and the judicial authorities by virtue of his or her inclusion in the Sex Offenders Register constitutes a deterrent and facilitates police investigations. The obligation arising out of placement on the register therefore has a preventive and deterrent purpose and cannot be considered to be punitive in nature or as constituting a sanction.

44. Furthermore, the Court notes that, while the applicant faces a two‑year prison sentence and a fine of 30,000 euros (EUR) if he fails to comply with that obligation, another set of proceedings, completely independent of the proceedings leading to his conviction on 30 October 2003, would then have to be initiated, during which the competent court could assess whether the failure to comply was culpable (see, conversely, Welch, cited above, § 14).

45. Lastly, as regards the severity of the measure, the Court reiterates that this is not decisive in itself (see Welch, cited above, § 32). It considers, in any event, that the obligation to provide proof of address every six months and to declare any change of address within fifteen days at the latest, albeit for a period of thirty years, is not sufficiently severe to amount to a “penalty”.

46. In the light of all these considerations, the Court is of the view that placement on the Sex Offenders Register and the obligations arising out of it do not amount to a “penalty” within the meaning of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention and should be considered as a preventive measure to which the principle set forth in that provision, namely that the law should not have retrospective effect, does not apply.

47. Accordingly, the applicant’s complaint under Article 7 of the Convention must be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION

48. The complaint under Article 7 of the Convention also gave rise to questions from the Court concerning Article 8 of the Convention, which, in its relevant parts, provides:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life ...

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety ... for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

A. The parties’ submissions

49. The Government stressed at the outset that the applicant had not expressly raised the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention in his initial application. Should the Court wish nonetheless to examine the case from the standpoint of Article 8, the Government submitted that the French authorities had not breached that provision.

50. The Government further emphasised that the constraint placed on the applicant as a result of his inclusion in the Sex Offenders Register could not be said to constitute interference with his private and family life since it was confined to the requirements laid down by Article 706-53-5 of the CCP (see paragraph 18 above).

51. They argued that the measure in question did indeed have a legal basis, in the form of the Law of 9 March 2004, which set out the implications of placement on the Sex Offenders Register for the persons concerned. The measure was aimed at preventing disorder and crime, in particular in relation to minors (Article 706-53-1 of the CCP).

52. Lastly, the Government submitted that society’s interest in the prevention of sexual offences had to be weighed against the seriousness of the infringement of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life. In their view, the establishment of the Sex Offenders Register was part of the gradual introduction of a specific set of rules governing sexual offences, which was justified by the comparatively recent increase in awareness concerning the special character of such offences. The latter stemmed from the fact that these offenders often had personality disorders, which were a real factor in reoffending, and from the particular suffering caused to the victims, especially if they were minors at the time of the offence. Hence, the national authorities had put in place a combination of punitive and preventive measures. The establishment of the Sex Offenders Register in that connection had been aimed at filling gaps in the system of prevention in relation to the particularly serious category of sexual offences. The Government added that it was clear from the Court’s case-law that the Court did not dispute States’ right, in seeking to prevent offending, to gather and store personal data provided that “there exist[ed] adequate and effective guarantees against abuse” (they referred to Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 60, Series A no. 116).

53. In the instant case, in the Government’s submission, the applicant had enjoyed all the guarantees provided by the law. He had been informed by the judicial authority of his placement on the register, which was supervised by a judge. Only persons who had committed the serious sexual offences referred to in Article 706-47 of the above-mentioned Code were affected, and only such offences automatically gave rise to placement on the register.

54. As to the other guarantees provided for by the law, the Government pointed out that the length of time for which the information was kept (twenty or thirty years) depended on the seriousness of the offence. This was a maximum period, and the persons concerned could request the deletion from the register of the information concerning them. The request could be made to three authorities: the public prosecutor, the liberties and detention judge and the President of the Investigation Division. This three‑pronged approach constituted a triple guarantee. In the instant case, the fact that the applicant’s conviction was entered in his criminal record made any request for deletion of the information in the Sex Offenders Register inadmissible. However, the applicant had the option of applying for judicial rehabilitation, which would wipe the conviction from the criminal records. Moreover, the Sex Offenders Register could be consulted only by certain authorities that were bound by a duty of confidentiality, and in precisely defined circumstances. Lastly, it was not possible to compare the data in the Sex Offenders Register with data held elsewhere.

55. The Government concluded that the safeguards accompanying placement on the register were such that it amounted to interference which was necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.

56. In the applicant’s view, the information contained in the register was not for public consumption. The constraints imposed by the legislation were not minimal but restricted the convicted person’s freedom of movement.

B. The Court’s assessment

57. The Court reiterates that since it is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, it does not consider itself bound by the characterisation given by an applicant or a government. By virtue of the jura novit curia principle, it may consider of its own motion complaints under Articles or paragraphs not relied on by those appearing before it. In other words, a complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑I, and Berktay v. Turkey, no. 22493/93, § 168, 1 March 2001). The Government’s objection of inadmissibility should therefore be dismissed.

The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

58. As to the rest, the Court observes that the Sex Offenders Register contains data concerning the applicant’s private life. The register comes under the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and is supervised by the judge who manages the criminal records. The Court stresses that it is not its task at this stage to speculate on the sensitive nature or otherwise of the information gathered or on the possible difficulties experienced by the applicant. According to its case-law, the storing by a public authority of information relating to an individual’s private life amounts to interference within the meaning of Article 8. The subsequent use of the stored information has no bearing on that finding (see, mutatis mutandis, Leander, cited above, § 48, and Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, § 53, Reports 1998‑II). More specifically, the Court has already ruled that the requirement for persons convicted of sexual offences to inform the police of their name, date of birth, address or change of address falls within the scope of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Adamson, cited above).

59. The Court observes that the parties did not dispute that the interference in question had been in accordance with the law and had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime (ibid.). It must therefore examine whether the interference was necessary from the standpoint of the requirements of the Convention.

60. Since the national authorities make the initial assessment as to where the fair balance lies in a case before a final evaluation by this Court, a certain margin of appreciation is, in principle, accorded by this Court to those authorities as regards that assessment. The breadth of this margin varies and depends on a number of factors including the nature of the activities restricted and the aims pursued by the restrictions (see Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, § 88, ECHR 1999‑VI).

61. Accordingly, where a particularly important facet of an individual’s existence or identity is at stake, the margin of appreciation accorded to a State will in general be restricted.

62. The protection of personal data is of fundamental importance to a person’s enjoyment of his or her right to respect for private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The domestic law must therefore afford appropriate safeguards to prevent any such use of personal data as may be inconsistent with the guarantees of this Article (see, mutatis mutandis, Z v. Finland, 25 February 1997, § 95, Reports 1997‑I). In line with its findings in S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 103, ECHR 2008), the Court is of the view that the need for such safeguards is all the greater where the protection of personal data undergoing automatic processing is concerned, not least when such data are used for police purposes. The domestic law should notably ensure that such data are relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are stored and that they are preserved in a form which permits identification of the data subjects for no longer than is required for the purpose for which those data are stored (see paragraphs 27 and 28 above, in particular Article 5 of the Data Protection Convention and the Preamble thereto and Principle 7 of Recommendation No. R (87) 15 of the Committee of Ministers regulating the use of personal data in the police sector). The domestic law must also afford adequate guarantees to ensure that retained personal data are efficiently protected from misuse and abuse.

63. The Court cannot call into question the preventive purpose of a register such as the one on which the applicant was placed after being sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment for the rape of a minor. The aim of that register, as it has already pointed out, is to prevent crime and in particular to combat recidivism and, in such cases, to make it easier to identify offenders. Sexual abuse is unquestionably an abhorrent type of wrongdoing, with debilitating effects on its victims. Children and other vulnerable individuals are entitled to State protection, in the form of effective deterrence, from such grave types of interference with essential aspects of their private lives (see Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, § 64, Reports 1996‑IV).

64. At the same time, European penal policy is evolving and attaching increasing importance, alongside the aim of punishment, to the rehabilitative aim of imprisonment, particularly towards the end of a long prison sentence (see Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 75, ECHR 2007‑V). Successful rehabilitation means, among other things, preventing reoffending (see the report of the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights cited in Léger v. France (no. 19324/02, § 49, 11 April 2006)).

65. In the instant case the applicant was automatically placed on the register under the transitional provisions of the 2004 Law, in view of the crime of which he had been finally convicted. He was duly notified of his placement on the register and took note of the obligations imposed on him.

66. As to the obligation to provide proof of address every six months and of any change of address, on pain of a prison sentence and payment of a fine, the Court has previously held that this did not give rise to an issue from the standpoint of Article 8 of the Convention (see Adamson, cited above).

67. As regards the length of time for which the information is kept, the Court notes that it is either twenty or thirty years depending on the severity of the sentence.

68. As pointed out by the Government, these are maximum periods. Although the thirty-year period in the instant case is considerable, the Court observes that the data are deleted automatically on expiry of that period, which starts to run as soon as the decision which gave rise to placement on the register ceases to have effect. The Court further notes that the person concerned may apply to the public prosecutor to have the data concerning him or her deleted if conserving the data no longer appears necessary in view of the purpose of the register, regard being had to the nature of the offence, the age of the person concerned when it was committed, the length of time that has elapsed and the person’s current personality (Article 706‑53-10 of the CCP, see paragraph 18 above). The prosecutor’s decision can be appealed against before the liberties and detention judge and subsequently before the President of the Investigation Division.

69. The Court considers that this judicial procedure for the removal of data provides for independent review of the justification for retention of the information according to defined criteria (see S. and Marper, cited above, § 119) and affords adequate and effective safeguards of the right to respect for private life, having regard to the seriousness of the offences giving rise to placement on the register. Admittedly, the storing of the data for such a long period could give rise to an issue under Article 8 of the Convention. However, the Court notes that the applicant will in any event have a practical opportunity of lodging an application for removal of the stored data from the date on which the decision giving rise to their entry in the register ceases to have effect. In these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the period of time for which the data are kept is not disproportionate to the aim pursued in storing the information.

70. As to the rules on the use of the register and the range of public authorities which have access to it, the Court notes that the latter has been extended on several occasions and is no longer limited to the judicial authorities and the police; administrative bodies now also have access (Article 706-53-7 of the CCP, see paragraph 18 above). The fact remains, nevertheless, that the register may only be consulted by authorities that are bound by a duty of confidentiality, and in precisely defined circumstances. In addition, the present case does not lend itself to examination in concreto of the issue of the availability of the register for consultation for administrative purposes.

71. In conclusion, the Court considers that the applicant’s placement on the Sex Offenders Register struck a fair balance between the competing private and public interests at stake and that the respondent State did not overstep the acceptable margin of appreciation in that regard. Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the instant case.

IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

72. Relying on Articles 6, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention, the applicant, who claimed that he was innocent, complained of the manner in which the investigation of his case had been carried out, the fact that his requests for investigative measures and expert reports had been refused by the investigating judge and the refusal by the Criminal Cases Review Board of his application for a retrial. In a letter of 3 November 2005, he also complained of the refusal of his application for suspension of his sentence, arguing that his state of health was incompatible with detention. Lastly, in a letter of 5 December 2005, the applicant alleged under Article 3 of the Convention that his continued detention amounted to torture.

73. Having regard to all the evidence in its possession and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine these complaints, the Court finds no appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the provisions relied upon. It therefore considers that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares the complaint concerning Article 8 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

Done in French, and notified in writing on 17 December 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President

Sažmi komentare

Član 8 | DIC

Presuda je povezana sa rešenjem Gž 3189/19 od 22.08.2019. godine Apelacionog suda u Beogradu, kojom se odbija kao neosnovana žalba tužioca i potvrđuje rešenje Višeg suda u Beogradu P.br. 11293/18 od 11.12.2018. godine u parnici tužioca AA protiv tužene Republike Srbije radi kršenja lјudskih prava jer je tužena svojim dopisom dostavile lične podatke tužioca i njegove porodice Komisiji Federacije BiH.

Rešenje je dostupno u javnoj bazi sudske prakse ovde