Information Note on the Court’s case-law 188

August-September 2015

Sõro v. Estonia - 22588/08

Judgment 3.9.2015 [Section I]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Publication of information about prior employment as driver with former security services: violation

Facts – After regaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Estonia carried out legislative reforms for transition to a democratic sys tem. It passed the Disclosure Act in February 1995. Under the Act information about the previous employment of individuals who had served in or cooperated with security or intelligence organisations of the former regime would be registered and made public. The applicant had been employed as a driver by the Committee for State Security from 1980 to 1991. In February 2004, he received notice that he had been registered pursuant to the Disclosure Act and that an announcement would be published. He did not exer cise his right to lodge a complaint and in June 2004 the announcement was published in the paper and Internet versions of the State Gazette.

The applicant subsequently sought to challenge the notice in the administrative courts. He explained that he had to leave his job because of the publication of the information and that he had only worked as a driver for the security services. Dismissing his complaint, the court of appeal accepted that the application of the Disclosure Act could interfere with a person’ s fundamental rights, but found that it was impossible to establish with absolute certainty decades later whether a specific driver had performed merely technical tasks or whether he had also performed substantive tasks which rendered the application of th e Disclosure Act proportionate.

Law – Article 8: The published information concerned the applicant’s past and affected his reputation and so constituted interference with his right to respect for private life. The interference was based on the Disclosure A ct, which was sufficiently clear and accessible and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting national security, public safety and the rights and freedoms of others.

In assessing the necessity of the interference in a democratic so ciety, there had been no uniform approach among Contracting States regarding measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian regimes. The Court had criticised the lack of individualisation of such measures before. In the instant case, t he Disclosure Act made no distinction between different levels of former involvement with the KGB. Although the applicant had been informed beforehand about the publication and had had the possibility to contest the information, there had been no procedure available to assess the specific tasks performed by the individual employees of the security services in order to differentiate the danger they might pose several years after their security service careers ended. The Court was not convinced that a reasona ble link existed between the legitimate aims pursued by the Government and the publication of information disregarding the specific functions of the former employees. The relevant information had been published thirteen years after the restoration of Eston ian independence and such a passage of time must have decreased any threat the applicant could have initially posed to the new democratic system. The Disclosure Act itself did not impose restrictions on the applicant’s future employment, but the applicant had nonetheless allegedly been forced to quit his job due to the behaviour of his colleagues. That consequence attested to the seriousness of the interference with his right to private life which interference had in the circumstances been disproportionate.

Conclusion : violation (four votes to three).

Article 41: EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.

(See also Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania , 55480/00 and 59330/00, 27 July 2004, Information Note 67 ; Matyjek v. Poland , 38184/03, 24 April 2007, Information Note 96 ; and Žičkus v. Lithuania , 26652/02 , 7 April 2009)

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes