CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 décembre 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 70 December 2004 Turek v. Slovakia (dec.) - 57986/00 Decision 14.12.2004 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Registration in the former State Security Agency files alleged to have been unjustified and to have negatively affected private life: admissible The applicant worked in the State administration system, and as such, his job fell under an Act which laid down certain conditions for the holding of posts in the public administration. In accordance with the Act, in March 1992, the Ministry of the Interior of the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic issued a security clearance on the applicant, stating that he was registered in the files of the former State Security Agency (StB). The information was made public in newspapers and on the internet. The applicant resigned from his post. He subsequently lodged an action for the protection of his good name and reputation with the City Court. In May 1999, the Regional Court dismissed the action, finding it established that the applicant had been listed as a “candidate for secret collaboration” and as an “agent” of the StB. Moreover, he had held meetings with StB agents which had amounted to a formal collaboration. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment, finding that the applicant had not proved his registration had been contrary to the then applicable rules. The applicant complains under Article 8 that his registration was wrongful, and that the security clearance had been an unwarranted interference with his reputation, which had had negative effects on his private life. Admissible under Articles 6 and 8.   © 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