AFFAIRE SEGERSTED-WIBERG ET AUTRES CONTRE LA SUÈDE
- Instanță
- CtEDO
- Concluzie
- Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt
AFFAIRE SEGERSTED-WIBERG ET AUTRES CONTRE LA SUÈDE (CtEDO, 2012)
Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012) 2222 [1] Segerstedt-Wiberg și alții împotriva Suediei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 62332/00, Hotărârea din 6 iunie 2009, definitivă la 6 septembrie 2009) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede că el supraveghează executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "menționate mai jos " Convenția" și "Curtea"), Având în vedere hotărârea definitivă, care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului în cauza de mai sus și încălcările constatate (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012)1064E care reamintește obligația de a se adresa Tribunalului, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (3) (1) din Convenție, să se conformeze hotărârilor definitive în litigiile la care este parte și că această obligație implică, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte, adoptarea de către autoritățile din statul membru în cauză, dacă este necesar de măsuri individuale pentru a pune capăt încălcărilor constatate și pentru a elimina consecințele acestora, în măsura posibilului de către Restitutio in integrum de măsuri generale de prevenire a unor încălcări similare ; Am invitat guvernul statului pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligațiilor menționate anterior După examinarea bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern care indică măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârii judecătorești, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012)1064E SÕ, asigurându-se că au fost adoptate toate măsurile prevăzute la art. 46 alineatul (1); DECLAMENTUL pe care l-a îndeplinit în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d . . Acțiunea report [2] Segerstedt-Wiberg and others v Sweden (aplicarea 62332/00) Judgment of 6 June 2009, final on 6 September 2009 Case description : Unjustifified storage by the Swedish Security Service of Information on the aplicants applicities in violation of their right to privacy, and to freedom of expresion and asociation (Violations of Art. 8, 10 and 11). The case also privibles the lack of any efectiv remedy with respect to these violation (violation of Art. 13). The aplicants took variad steaps to obtain the information held on their filess from the earliest in 1997, eventually resulting in decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court in 2000. În relație cu art. 8, Curtea Europeană de Justiție consideră că storage of the information was provided by law and purued a legitimate aim. In respect of the first aplicant, the Court conclused that the information held was apart and sucient as as as as privis the aim of preventing disorder or prin urmare its retention was not disportionate (§ However, in respect of the remaining cuptor applicants the Court concluded that storage of the information did not se potrivește cu any national security risks and the interference was disproportionate (§§ The Court also found that storing personal data raported to political avizs, afilieris and activities that had been deemed unjustified for the purposes of Article 8§2 ipso facto constituted an unjustified interference with the rights protected by Articles 10 and 11. In respect of Article 13, the European Court noted that the relevant monitoring body The Data Inspection Board had wider powers and could applications to the County Administrative Court for the estrasure of unlawfully stored information but the European Court was not provided with any information showing efectivness of the Data Inspection Board in Practice. Further, the aplicants had no direct access to any legal remedy as priviri the etrasure of the information in interviu (see §§) 120 a121 of the judgment. Individual measures The European Court awarded all of the aplicants just satisfacetion for moraly damage. The damages awarded have been paid. The information in ques has been eliminated from the records of the Swedish Security Service and is prin urmare neither searchable nor accesibil to Swedish Security Service personal. No further individual measures seem necesarary. General Measures The judgment of the European Court was mirosit out to the Supreme Administrator Court, all administrativ scurts of appeal, the parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice with a memorandum on 15/01/2007 analizing the judgment. A new agency, the Swedish Commission on Security and Integrity Protection (hereinafter the Commission), was established partly as a response to the European Court It began operating in January 2008 in order to supervision the use by crima-fighting agencies of secret supervision and calificed accounted identities and asociated activities as well as the processing of personal data by the Swedish Security Service. Since March 1, 2012 the Commission supervisions the processing of personal data by the Swedish Police, inclusiving the Swedish Security Service. The Commission took over the functions previously held by the Records Board. It also acquired a new supervisory and control function placed at improving individual access to a national legal remedy in cases involving secret supraveghere and processing of personal data by the Swedish Security Service. At the request of an individually the Commission is required to check, inter alia , whether he or she has been subject to secret supervision or subject to processing of personal data by the Swedish Security Service and whether it was in acordance with laws and other regulations. If, in the course of its activities, the Commission prospects Circumstations that may constitute a criminal offence, the Commission shall report this to the Swedish Prosecution Authority or another competent authority. If the Commission discovers circumstances that the Swedish Data Inspection Board should be make aware of, the Commission shall shall report this to the Chancellor of Justice. The Data Inspection Board may then intervene, and if it turns out to be imposibil to remedy the situation in any other way, or if the matter is urgent, the Board may interzic the controller of personal data, i.e. the Swedish Security Service, from continuuing to procesation the personal data in any way (other than storing it) and may attattatta a conditional financial penalty to this prohibition. As a last resort, the Board may apply to the county administrative scurt for esurture of such personal data which has been procesioned in an unlawful manner. Bearing in mind that the processing of personal data by the Police Service can be of a very sensitive natura in relation to the right to privaty, the Swedish Data Inspection Board has a declarad policy to always initiate supervision procedures in the event of a compaint from an individual, unless it is clear from the information contained in the complaint that the processing of personal data has followed the regulations in force. In recent years there have only been a cupl of compaints from individuals per year. In cases, însă, in which the Board has found, folowing a complaint, that incorect processing of personal data has occurred within the police service, the authority keeping the records has promptly remedied the situation or else appealed against the Boards decision. The Board has prin urmare not needed to take any further-reaching measure other than ordering the police to discontinue anumite processing, eliminate anumite data or take other similar measures. Also from 1 January 2007, an appeal may be made to a general administrativ scurt against a decis by the Swedish Security Service not to corect or eliminate personal data that the companion asserts is being processed in amendation of legislation. As of 30 June 2012, individuals have requested the Commission to check whether he or she has been subject to secret supervision by crima-fighting agencies or subject to processing of personal data by the Swedish police (inclusiv Swedish Security Service) in 977 cases. 17 of those had not yet been conclused and were still awaiting examination. The Commission has in two of the conchided cases found that personal data may been processed by the Swedish Security Service in away that may entail mal liability for the state towards the requesting personson. The Chancellor of Justice has in both cases decided that these persons will receive compensation. The Government assessment of these statisticics is that the Commission as supervision and control of the quiing of personal data by the Swedish Security Service is now fully operational, as required by the new resulatory framework. on 1 March 2012, a new Police Data Act [Polisdatalag (2010:361) ] entered into force. One general purpose of the new legislation is to protect people from violation of their personal privaty when personal data is procesioned in the course of law enforcement activities. The new Police Data Act contains a special Chapter regulating the processing of personal data by the Swedish Security Service. The provisions in the new Police Data Act largly agree with the previous legislation but provide clearer and more detailed regulations in areas, inclusiv the provisions on removal of data. In pregaring the new legislation, the deliberations of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Segerstedt-Wiberg have been taken into account. Publication and disemination: Judgment is available on the Government mais uman rights website, www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se, along with a detailed summary. Concluzie The Government considers that measures adopted have remedied the consecinces for the applications of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases and that these measures will prevent similar viols. Thus, the Government considers that Sweden has commed with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1, of the convention. [1] Adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 6 decembrie 2012 în cadrul celei de-a 1157-a reuniuni a delegaților miniștrilor. [2] Numai în limba engleză.