Un’autorità pubblica non può diffondere dati sulla salute psichica se non è previsto dalla legge – Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo di Strasburgo, Sezione V, Sentenza 29/06/2006
La Corte
europea dei diritti dell’uomo (sentenza 29 giugno 2006, Application n. 11901/02)
si è pronunciata sulla legittimità della richiesta e dell’utilizzo di dati
concernenti la salute psichica di un cittadino ucraino, nell’ambito di un
processo nel quale lo stesso era parte. I giudici nazionali di primo grado
(Corte del distretto di Desniansky), oltre ad aver ottenuto da un ospedale
psichiatrico informazioni sulla salute mentale del ricorrente e sul relativo
trattamento medico, ne avevano dato notizia, durante una udienza pubblica, alle
parti del processo e ai presenti.
La Corte
europea, sottolineando che i dettagli diffusi rappresentano dati relativi alla
sfera privata dell’individuo, ha riconosciuto che il comportamento dei giudici
nazionali aveva costituito un’ingerenza nella vita privata del ricorrente ai
sensi dell’art. 8 della Convenzione europea per la salvaguardia dei diritti
dell’uomo e delle libertà fondamentali del 1950. La Convenzione, che garantisce
il diritto al rispetto della vita privata e familiare, proibisce ogni ingerenza
di una autorità pubblica nell’esercizio di tale diritto "a meno che tale
ingerenza sia prevista dalla legge e costituisca una misura che, in una società
democratica, è necessaria per la sicurezza nazionale, per la pubblica
sicurezza, per il benessere economico del paese, per la difesa dell’ordine e per
la prevenzione dei reati, per la protezione della salute o della morale, o per
la protezione dei diritti e delle libertà altrui".
Nel valutare
se la condotta dei giudici nazionali dovesse ritenersi o meno "prevista dalla
legge", la Corte europea ha ricordato come già la corte nazionale d’appello
avesse concluso che il trattamento dei dati del ricorrente effettuato in primo
grado aveva costituito una violazione della disciplina speciale sul trattamento
di dati psichiatrici.
La Corte
europea ha cosi’ giudicato "ridondante" la richiesta d’informazioni da parte dei
giudici nazionali di primo grado, per l’irrilevanza delle stesse ai fini del
procedimento giudiziario.
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF PANTELEYENKO v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 11901/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 June 2006
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Panteleyenko v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr J. Borrego Borrego,
Mrs R. Jaeger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 June 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 11901/02)
against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a
Ukrainian national, Mr Oleksandr Sergiyovych Panteleyenko (“the applicant”), on
30 November 2001.
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agents, Ms Valeria Lutkovska and Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
3. On 15 March 2005 the Court decided to communicate the application to
the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it
decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the city of Chernigiv.
1. The applicant’s criminal case and derivative proceedings
a. Criminal charge against the applicant
5. On 3 May 1999 the Chernigiv City Prosecutor’ Office (hereinafter the
Prosecutor’ Office) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for
abuse of power and forgery of official documents. The prosecution’s case was
that the applicant, while acting in his capacity as a private notary, had
fraudulently certified a title and real-estate transactions using invalid
registration forms.
6. On 21 May 1999 the Chernygiv City Prosecutor issued a search warrant in
respect of the applicant’s office. The search was carried out the same day.
According to the record drawn up on this occasion, the authorities seized at the
office notary stamps and documents, a number of accounting records and a metal
strong-box. The latter was opened on 2 July 1999 at the premises of the
Prosecutor’s Office. The relevant record stated that there had been found,
inter alia, personal items belonging to the applicant.
7. On 28 July 1999 an investigator from the Prosecutor’s Office closed the
applicant’s case given the lack of any corpus delicti.
8. On 20 September 2000 the acting Chernigiv City Prosecutor overruled the
investigator’s decision, as it had been proved that the applicant had committed
the imputed offence, but ordered the discontinuation of proceedings due to the
insignificance of the offence. The applicant challenged this finding, claiming
that he had not committed any offence. On 21 December 2000 the Desniansky
District Court of Chernigiv (hereafter “the Desniansky Court”) rejected the
applicant’s complaint.
9. On 26 February 2001 the Presidium of the Chernigiv Regional Court, in the
course of supervisory proceedings, quashed the decision of the Desniansky Court
and remitted the case.
10. On 4 April 2001 the Desniansky Court quashed the City Prosecutor’s ruling
of 20 September 2000 and ordered a further pre-trial investigation.
11. On 26 May 2001 an investigator terminated the criminal proceedings on
substantially the same grounds as in the September 2000 ruling. On 4 July 2001
the Chernigiv City Prosecutor quashed this decision and ordered further
inquiries in the case.
12. On 4 August 2001 the criminal case was closed due to the insignificance of
the offence which had been committed. The applicant’s complaint against this
ruling was rejected on 6 November 2001 by the Desniansky Court as being
unsubstantiated. In particular, the court indicated that the applicant’s guilt
had been proved by the evidence collected in the course of the investigation.
13. On 24 January 2002 the Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal (hereafter “the
Court of Appeal”) quashed the decision of 6 November 2001 as the local court had
failed to specify the evidence in support of its opinion as to the applicant’s
guilt. The case was remitted for a fresh consideration.
14. On 26 June 2002 the Desniansky Court rejected the applicant’s complaint
against the ruling of 4 August 2001. The court indicated that the investigation
case file contained sufficient evidence to establish that the applicant had
forged a certain notary document and wittingly carried out an invalid notarial
action. However, having regard to the insignificance of the offence, further
criminal prosecution was impractical. As regards the applicant’s submissions
concerning the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained by the search of his
office, the court found that such complaints could be raised during the trial on
the merits and considered itself incompetent to examine them in the course of
the proceedings before it.
On 9 September 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld this decision. On 13 December
2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal
under the cassation procedure.
b. Compensation proceedings
15. In January 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings against the
Prosecutor’s Office, seeking monetary compensation for the material and moral
damage suffered as a result of the allegedly unlawful search of his office (i.e.
loss of or damage to personal items and the seizure of documents essential for
his professional activity).
16. On 28 August 2000 the Novozavodsky District Court of Chernigiv (hereafter
“the Novozavodsky Court”) granted this claim. The court declared the search of
the applicant’s office “to have been conducted unlawfully” (визнати
проведення обшуку незаконним).
In particular, it established that in breach of Article 183 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereafter “the CCP”) the investigator, being well aware of
the applicant’s wher
