ECHR The applicant had a licence for a pistol and rifle. His was refused another licence, and then the existing licence was withdrawn. His name had been included in a police list in an operational records file holding data for law enforcement bodies obtained during operational activities. He began proceedings challenging his listing. The court admitted classified material which was not shown to the claimant, and rejected his complaint. No procedure in Lithuanian law allowed for this practice.
Held: The Court said: ‘The Court is not insensitive to the goals which the Lithuanian law enforcement authorities pursued through their operational activities. Likewise, the Court shares the Government’s view that documents which constitute state secrets may only be disclosed to persons who possess the appropriate authorisation. And yet the Court notes that Lithuanian law and judicial practice provide that such information may not be used as evidence in court against a person unless it has been declassified, and that it may not be the only evidence on which a court bases its decision . .’ It further indicated that the file was the only evidence of the applicant’s alleged danger to society, that he had repeatedly asked for its disclosure to him, even in part, and that, without it, he had no possibility of being apprised of the evidence against him or of being able to respond to it. The Court concluded: ‘In conclusion, therefore, the Court finds that the decision-making procedure did not comply with the requirements of adversarial proceedings or equality of arms, and did not incorporate adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the applicant. It follows that there has been a violation of article 6(1) in the present case.’
Citations:
16965/04, [2010] ECHR 1060
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
Citing:
Cited – Fayed v United Kingdom ECHR 6-Oct-1994
The Secretary of State had appointed inspectors to investigate and report on a company takeover. In their report, which was published, the inspectors made findings which were critical of and damaging to the applicants, who relied on the civil limb . .
Cited – Gulmez v Turkey ECHR 20-May-2008
The applicant complained inter alia of successive decisions which had deprived him of visitation rights for about a year as punishment for disciplinary offences whilst in prison.
Held: ‘the restriction on the applicant’s visiting rights . .
Cited – Kerojarvi v Finland ECHR 19-Jul-1995
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings . .
Cited by:
Cited – Home Office v Tariq SC 13-Jul-2011
(JUSTICE intervening) The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420474
