| Applicant name | S.V.M. |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Ukraine |
| Application no. | 40106/15 |
| Date | 12/09/2024 |
| Judges | Lado Chanturia, President, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Mykola Gnatovskyy |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | No legal basis; not necessary (prevention disorder and crime; rights of others) |
| Type of privacy | informational privacy |
| Keywords | Even if; disclore information |
| Facts of the case | Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant argued that the extract from the police register issued to him by the police had arbitrarily and unnecessarily disclosed sensitive information concerning his expunged criminal conviction. |
| Analysis | In this connection, the Court must assess, firstly, whether the interference was “lawful”. It notes that in the domestic proceedings the applicant argued that the police had breached Article 32 of the Constitution and section 14 of the DPA, both of which required an individual’s consent for the disclosure of personal information except in cases where such disclosure was expressly required by law. Neither the domestic authorities dealing with that argument at national level, nor the Government in their observations before the Court, cited any legislative instrument which required the police to disclose a past conviction in the circumstances of the applicant’s case. T Although the above is sufficient for a finding of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention , regard being had to the seriousness of the issue, the Court will proceed to examine the other elements of compliance with Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, that is, the “existence of a legitimate aim” and “necessity in a democratic society” . The Court recognises that the retention and processing of information concerning past convictions may, in specific circumstances, pursue various legitimate aims, such as preventing disorder and crime. From the available material, the Court is unable to discern how the disclosure of that particular information in the requested extracts, which could be required in a variety of situations where the applicant’s expunged conviction was of no apparent relevance, pursued any of the legitimate aims listed in Article 8 § 2, answered any pressing social need or struck a fair balance between the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention and the interests of any third party in knowing about his past conviction which, in accordance with the requirements of national law, had already been expunged. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 3,500 (three thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; |
| Documents | Judgment |