CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 octobre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 123 October 2009 Haralambie v. Romania - 21737/03 Judgment 27.10.2009 [Section III] Article 8 Positive obligations Article 8-1 Respect for private life Ineffectiveness of procedure for gaining access to personal files held by secret services during communist period: violation   Facts – In 2002 the applicant asked the National Council for the Study of the Archives of the Securitate (“the CNSAS”) whether he had been the subject of surveillance measures in the past. He was informed in 2003 that a file in his name did exist but that, since the archives were held by the Romanian Intelligence Service, it was necessary to wait for his file to be transferred by that Service. In 2005 the Intelligence Service transmitted a file in the applicant’s name to the CNSAS. In 2008 the CNSAS indicated that the date of birth in the file did not correspond to that of the applicant and that checks were therefore necessary. A few days later the CNSAS invited the applicant to come and consult the file on him created by the Securitate (the former secret services of the communist regime). He was given a copy of the file, which bore the annotations “opened on 12   April 1983” and “the file was microfilmed on 23   July 1996”. A note indicated that Mr   Haralambie had commented unfavourably on politics and the economic situation. A note was also made of an undertaking by the applicant, dating from 1979, to collaborate with the Securitate , with official comments to the effect that he was evading his security work and that he would be placed under investigation and his correspondence monitored. Law – Article 8: In the context of access to personal files held by the public authorities, the authorities had a duty to provide individuals with an “effective and accessible procedure” for obtaining access to “all relevant and appropriate information”. Domestic law gave every Romanian citizen the right to access their personal file held by the Securitate and other documents or information on them. The Romanian Intelligence Service and other institutions in possession of those files were obliged to guarantee the right of access to the files and to send them to the CNSAS at the latter’s request. Domestic law had thus formally established an administrative procedure for gaining access to files. With regard to the effectiveness of that procedure, it should be noted that it was not until 2008 that the applicant had been invited to consult his personal file, which was more than six years after his initial request made in 2002 and five years after the CNSAS had informed him that a file on him existed. Furthermore, it was not until the application had been communicated to the Government that the applicant obtained a reply to his request. It was clear from the materials in the case file that the file on the applicant had been sent to the CNSAS in 2005. Whilst the law had not initially provided for a time-limit for transferring the file, the legislative change enacted in 2006 established a time-limit of sixty days for transferring files. The length of the administrative procedure in question had far exceeded the time-limit required under the 2006 Act. Moreover, having regard to the applicant’s advanced age, the Court found that his interest in retracing his personal history during the era of the totalitarian regime was all the more urgent. Further, the Court did not accept that the quantity of files transferred or the shortcomings in the archive system could of themselves justify a delay of more than six years by the institutions concerned in granting the applicant’s request. Having regard to the foregoing, the State had not satisfied the positive obligation incumbent on it to provide the applicant with an effective and accessible procedure allowing him to obtain access to his personal file within a reasonable time. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR   4,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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