| Applicant name | KACZMAREK |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Poland |
| Application no. | 16974/14 |
| Date | 22/02/2024 |
| Judges | Marko Bošnjak, President, Alena Poláčková, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Lətif Hüseynov, Péter Paczolay, Ivana Jelić, Gilberto Felici |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Not in accordance with the law; |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy |
| Keywords | Telephone tapping; publication data; quality of law; |
| Facts of the case | The applicant complained that her personal data and material which had been gathered in the covert surveillance operation had been made public during a press conference and that the authorities’ response had not been adequate. She also complained about the retention of the material gathered during the surveillance operation. |
| Analysis | As to whether the applicant has suffered a “significant disadvantage” with reference to her Article 8 rights, the Court notes, that she complained about the effects of the disclosure of her telephone conversation during a press conference and the alleged failure to destroy the material resulting from the surveillance operation. It further considers that these issues concerned her “private life” and “correspondence” and were a matter of principle for her. The Court, therefore, does not share the Government’s view that the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage. Accordingly, it dismisses the Government’s objection. The relevant provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure provided: “In exceptional cases, in the course of an investigation access to the case file may be given to third parties with the prosecutor’s permission”. However, the domestic law did not specify either the “exceptional cases” or how access would be granted to the third parties. Also, the provision in question did not provide for the disclosure, at a press conference, of information or data gathered during the investigation. The Court therefore considers that the disclosure, during a press conference, of a recording of a phone conversation of the person who was not subjected to the investigation went beyond the scope of the empowerment vested in the prosecuting authorities by the above‑mentioned provision. The parties agreed that there had been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life on account of the retention of material obtained through the secret surveillance operation. The Court concludes that the lack of sufficient clarity in the legal framework at the time of the events in the present case and the absence of procedural guarantees relating specifically to the destruction of the applicant’s communications mean that the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention was not “in accordance with the law”. |
| Other Article violation? | not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention; |
| Damage awarded | that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage; |
| Documents | Judgment |