Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19790504-817078
Timestamp: 2017-01-24 05:35:19+00:00
Document Index: 103865627

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 42", "l'article 8", "l'article 3", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 27", "l'article 8", "l'article 26", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 22", "l'article 8", "l'article 27"]

Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche X. v. AUSTRIA
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8170/78Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1979-05-04;8170.78 Analyses : (Art. 10-1) LIBERTE D'EXPRESSION, (Art. 10-2) INGERENCE, (Art. 10-2) NECESSAIRE DANS UNE SOCIETE DEMOCRATIQUE, (Art. 10-2) PREVUE PAR LA LOI, (Art. 11-2) PROTECTION DES DROITS ET LIBERTES D'AUTRUIParties : Demandeurs : X. v. AUSTRIATexte : APPLICATION/REOUÃTE NÂ° 8170/78 X . v/AUSTRI A
X . c/AUTRICH E DECISION of 4 May 1979 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 4 mai 1979 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 8 of the Convention : Does the fact that the police authorities lawfully compiled personal data and submitted them to a court dealing with a criminal case constitute an interference with the right to respect for private life ? IOuestion not pursuedl Insofar as such compilation was made following the institution of criminal proceedings and for the sole purpose of facilitating the task of the judicial authorities, the interference- if at all- is justified as being necessary for the prevention of crime .
Article 8 de la Convention : Le fait par les autoritÃ©s de police d'Ã©tablir une compilation de donnÃ©es personnelles rÃ©gubÃ©rement obtenues par elles et de la transmettre au tribunal saisi d'une affaire pÃ©nale consitue-t-it une ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice du droit au respect de la vie privÃ©e ? (Question non rÃ©so/ue l Dans la mesure o0 une telle compilation a Ã©tÃ© Ã©tablie A l'occasion de l'affaire et dans le seul but de faciliter la tÃ¢che du juge, l'ingÃ©rence - si ingÃ©rence il y a - est justifiÃ©e comme nÃ©cessaire Ã©/a prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales .
(f2nÃ§ais : voir p . 153)
The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows : 1 . The applicant is an Austrian citizen born in 1954 and residing in Vienna . He is a student . The applicant is represented before the Commission by Mr Georg Zanger, who is a lawyer in Vienna . - 145 -
2 . The applicant's complaints arise out of the fact that he has allegedly been supervised in secret by the Austrian authorities ever since his seventh year of age . 3 . On 16 June 1976, members of the neo-Fascist organisation "Aktion Neue Rechte", hereinafter referred to as ANR, celebrated the so-called "Day of German Unity" in front of the University in Vienna . At the same time, about sixty students-amongst them the applicant-attended a student meeting in the auditorium of the law faculty at thÃ© University . When they learnt that members of the ANR had provoked other students and also had used force against them, they decided to hold an anti-Fascist demonstration in front of the University . Following this decision the majority of the appGcant's friends left the lecture-room with a view to participating in the demonstration . The applicant, on the other hand, remained in the auditorium in order to draft a resolution against the appearance of the ANR . He was only later told that there had been violent altercations in front of the University . 4 . Criminal proceedings were subsequently instituted before the District Court in Vienna against the applicant following the demand of the ANR and some of its members . The applicant was charged with offences of bodily harm, wilful destruction and removal of property contrary to Articles 83, paragraph 1, 125 and 135, paragraph 1, of the Autrian Penal Code . However, the applicant was able to prove that he had not participated in the altercation ewsinquetoadbyflcisonhea qutlyciedofh charges preferred against him . 5 . Following the acquittal the applicant had still reason to believe, so he says, that one of the witnesses had committed perjury during the criminal proceedings . He therefore asked his lawyer to get a copy of the complete file of his court case . In studying this file, the applicant found that, according to the criminal record acquired by the Court, he had no previous convictions . He also found, however, that the Vienna Federal Police Directorate (Bundespolizeidirektion Wien) had transmitted to the trial court a report as to the applicant's character, the report being required from the Security Police Department of the Police Directorate in Vienna IPolizeidirektion Wien, Staatspolizeiliches BÃ¼rol . 6 . In the report in question it was stated, amongst other things, that confidential investigations at the Vienna University on . . .June 1976 had shown that a Mr X ., member of the KSV' and about 25 years of age, should have conducted the action on 16 June 1976 in front of the Vienna University against the members of the ANR . According io the report, the inquiries had fuÂ«hermore revealed that the suspected person referred to was the student X . ,
A communisl slutlenr org3ni581ion .
born on . . . 1954, Austrian citizen, single, resident at . . . in Vienna and registered with the police . The Police Office also noted that they had recorded the following particulars about the applicant : In the years 1961, 1963 and 1972 he had participated in holiday camps at the S . Castle in the region of Klagenfurt . The camps were organised by the Democratic Union "KinderlandJunge Garde" . As from 26 to 29 October 1972 the applicant had also participated in a course of instruction in M . for members and officials of the KPO' . As to the year 1974 it was noted that the applicant was the proprietor, editor, multiplier etc . of the monthly publication " . . ." which was a paper of the KSB in Vienna The applicant was according to the report also responsible for the contents of this publication . It was finally noted that during 8 to 14 February 1976, the applicant had participated in a one-week seminar for activities and functionaries at the KPO training home " . . ." in M . The applicant learnt about this police, report on . . after the court file was delivered to him .
COMPLAINT S 7 . The applicant now complains that he has been continuously supervised ever since his seventh year of age by the authority concerned which has thereby interfered with his private life, his right to freedom of movement IRecht auf FreizÃ¼gigkeitl and with his freedom of thought, conscience and expression . It has in his view also interfered with his right to adhere to views without being hampered, with his right to receive and impart information and ideas by all means as well as with his right of assembly and freedom of association for peaceful aims . The exercice of his rights and freedoms have also been subjected to unlawful restrictions in that practically each step of his has been supervised ever since he was seven years of age . In a file labelled "Spitzelakten" there are thus records of his entire private and social conduct . Contrary to legal regulations he has consequently been pursued by the authorities in spite of his not having ever committed any criminal act . The applicant is also of the view that his rights have been violated in that the responsible authority disclosed the contents of their report to the Court in the course of the criminal proceedings which were instituted against him . He can therefore not defend himself against the impression that the disclosure of the report was done with the intention to portray him as a politically unreliable and even suspicious person . He sees in this act an inadmissible interference by the authority with the proceedings which were pending against him, since the report should be used as evidence against him . The Austrlan communist party .
- 147-
He considers the supervision of him to be particularly upsetting since it reproaches him of being a member of democratic organisations such as the Austrian Communist Party which was amongst the founders of the Republic of Austria . He alleges violations of Articles 8, 9 . 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention as there was no legal foundation for the supervision of him and, since, in his submission, these provisions guarantee the right to freedom and the right to unrestricted political activitie s 8 The applicant finally submits that there is no remedy available (kein ordentliches Rechtsmittell against the act of supervision as such . Neither the supervision, nor the recording of the supervision, nor the disclosure of the report to the court was based on a decision . It was not until . . . September 1977 that he learnt about the facts which form the basis of this application, and he therefore considers that he has complied with the six months' rule . PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIO N 9 . The present application was introduced with the Commission on 14 December 1977 and registered on 23 February 1978 . The Commission considered the admissibility of the application on 4 December 1978 and decided, in accordance with Rule 42 .2 .b. of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the Government of Austria and to invite them to submit their observations in writing on the question of admissibility . The Commission considered that the application might raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention in particular . The observations of the respondent Government are dated 16 February 1979, and the applicant's observations in reply are dated 29 March 1979 .
OBSERVATIONS OF THE PARTIE S The Governmen t 10 . The respondent Government submitted that the applicant had never been watched by an authority . The Vienna Federal Police Directorate's information referred to in the application was supplied to the Vienna District Criminal Court in connection with criminal proceedings instituted following a violent altercation in front of the University of Vienna on 16 June 1976 . Two students, members of the political organisation ANR IAktion Neue Rechte), who had distributed pamphlets in front of the Univcrsity, reported that they had been assaulted and beaten by political opponents . The assailants had also deprived them of the pamphlets they were going to distribute . The Vienna Federal Police Directorate had no trace of the alleged perpetrators, but in a letter of . . . June 1976 to the DirectoratL:, the ANR named th e - 148 -
applicant as the perpetrator . The Directorate was thereafter bound to conduct the necessary investigations concerning an offence which was imputed to the applicant and contrary to Articles 83, paragraph 1, 125 and 135, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code . 11 . The respondent Government submitted furthermore that, in view of the fact that the motives underlying the altercation on 16 June 1976 were obviously of a political nature, these investigations were conducted by the Security Police Department of the Vienna Federal Police Directorate . The Security Police Department was a unit competent by law to perform police activities relating to unlawful acts committed for political reasons . 12 Under Article 3 of the Code of Penal Procedure all authorities concerned with criminal proceedings were held "to consider both incriminating circumstances and evidence for the defence of the 'accused' (In the Austrian sense of the wordl with the same attention" . In view of the political background of the said altercation it was important for the tendering of evidence to find out any indication telling for or against the suspected persons' participation in such an altercation . It was the responsibility of police authorities in the case of judicially punishable acts to ascertain all circumstances of importance for the criminal court in judging the facts . A possible indication in the present case was offered by the data available on account of the requirements contained in the Act on Registratuon with the Police IMeldegesetzl and the press laws . 13 . It was thus exclusively in the course of inquiries relating to the information alleging the perpetration of a punishable offence that the Vienna Federal Police Directorate collected from the administrative data kept by them the facts that might admit of a conclusion as to a political motivation, if any These data were kept in accordance with the legislation on registration with the police and the press laws . 14 . The security policeinformation consisted of the following item s a . Lists of members of private groups submitted in accordance with Aiticle 5, paragraph 3, of the 1954 Act on Registration with the Police by the nnrsons responsible for reporting to the registration office, which showed the narticipants in the holiday camps ol the "Demokratische Vereinigung Kinderirnnd - Junge Garde" at the S Castle in 1961 and 1963 and the participants in ihe course of instruction organised for members and functionaries of the Austrian Communist Party IKPO1 at M . in 1972 . According io Ihe Governinent the note ihal also in 1972 Ihere was a 'Vormerkung wie 1961" was wrong . For 1972 there existed a registration wnh the police in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 3 . of the 1954 Act on Rr+nistration with the Police indicating the participants in a camp of the "Vereinigung Kinderland - Junge Garde" u t . . . Among the participants registered was also the applicant . - 149-
It further appeared from the list drawn up in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 3, of the 1954 Act on Registration with the Police that the participants in that camp were reported for registration by "Kinderland hinge Garde", Le . the organiser itself . The reports for registration of the participants in the camps in 1961 and 1963 and in the course of instruction of 1972 were furnished in ihe same way . h . A notification filed with the Vienna Police Directorate by the applicant liiniself concerning the planned I,ublication of the periodical " . . '
c. The participarion in a one-week seminar for activists and functionaries at the KPO training " . . " at M . was reported to the registration office by the manager of the training home submitting to the registration office the visitors' book, which must bekept pursuant to Article [~ of the 1972 Act on Registration with the Police .
15 . Apart from the conipilauon of the aâ¢iministrative data available to the police as required by law, which was made for the purposes of the criminal proceedings, no action was taken by any police authority in the present case . The compilation was destined exclusively for the judicial proceedings conducted subsequently, and indeed, was not to the detriment of the applicant, as was borne out by his eventual acquittal . It thus appeared from what has been stated above that the applicant was not kept under surveillance either by the Vienna Federal Police Directorate -Security Police Department-or by any other police authority . The rights ensured by the Convention were therefore not violated . 16 For the sake of completeness it was furthermore stressed, however, that the keeping of registration data or their procurement under the authorities' mutual assistance obligation (Art . 22 of the Federal, Constitutional Act) could not be a violation of the right to respect for a person's private and family life, if only by reason of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention .17 . In the light of the foregoing reasons the respondent Governmen t requested that the application be declared inadmissible under Article 27 of the Convention as being manifestly ill-founde d The applican t 18 . The applicant submitted in the first place that the assertion that he had never been supervised by the authorities was contrary to the facts of his case . Already the lists submitted by the Government gave information about the field of activity of the Security Police (Staatspolizei) in Austria . It was true that the keeping of records in accordance with the Act on Registration did not disclose any unlawful su rv eillance . However, when such informatio n
was transmitted by various authorities to the Security Police, following its request, and then collected by the same, then there was a misuse of information in the sense of a centralised surveillance of the person . In the applicant's view the Government had themselves produced the evidence for the surveillance alleged by hi m 19 . It was true, in the second place, that all circumstances, whether serving to incriminateor support the accused person, should be considered with the same attention, and that they could be made known to the Court by the authoritSes . However, the respondent Government had not in any way explained the allegation made in this case The meaning with this application was nol to complain about the fact that incrimnating material was possibly submitted to the Court but rather the fact that the statements of the Security Police were included in the Court file . The applicant agreed that these statements could in no way give any basis for either incriminating or vindicating him . The applicant wondered, in addition, of what importance it could have been to know, in case of his being convicted of deliberate bodily harm, that he had participated in a holiday camp (or children as a seven-year-old child? The Government had provided no explanation in this respect . 20 . The applicant further staled that it was neither serious nor relevant to say that the compilation of the data was destined exclusively for the judicial proceedings and that it was not to his detriment . In his submission the Government with this statement wanted to turn away from the fact that, in reality, these documents were produced by the authorities merely with the intention unlawfully to influence the criminal proceedings . According to the Austrian penal law it was undoutedly irrelevant whether or not someone had participated, as a seven-year-old child, in a camp for children organised by a political party . To collect such data and to produce them in penal proceedings was contrary to the guaranteed human rights . 21 . For all these reasons the facts of his case as asserted in the application were to be accepted as proved . The applicant consequently requested that his case be declared admissible .
THE LAW 22 . The applicani has submitted that he has been supervised by ihe Austrian authorities . He has inter alia alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, the terms of which read as follows : "1 . Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence . - 151 -
2 . There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health and morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . " 23 The Commission observes in the first place that the applicant has submitted that he has no remedies at his disposal under Austrian law in respect of the complaints made by him before the Commission . The respondent Government have made no objections to this statement . The Commission is therefore satisfied that no issue arises under Article 26 of the Convention . 24 . The question which the Commission is then called upon to examine in this case is whether the applicant's complaints disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention . It is understood that the applicant complains, in particular, about the fact that the information that was available to the police authorities in accordance with the Act on Registration with the Police and the press laws was collected by the Vienna Federal Police Directorate and produced in the criminal proceedings instituted against him . 25 . The Commission observes in the first place that the collection of data in ihe present case was carried out for the purposes of investigating specific charges in a criminal case, and it cannot be considered as constituting surveillance . It is noted, furthermore, that the applicant has not submitted any evidence showing that he, individually, has on any occasion been subjected to secret surveillance by the Austrian authorities . The question arises, on the other hand, whether the applicant's right to respect for his private life as guaranteed by Article 8, paragraph 1 has been interfered with by the fact that the information available to the police was collected and submitted to the Court in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted against him . However, the Commission considers that this question can be left open in the present case, since any interference can for the following reasons be justified under Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention . 26 . It appears clear in this respect Ihat the compliation of the administrative data available to the police was only commenced following the institution of the criminal proceedings against the applicant . The respondent Government have stated that the information was exclusively destined for these proceedings . It was believed that a possible indication was offered by the data available on account of the requirements contained in the Act on Registration with the Police and the press laws . In the Commission's opinion it is undeniably of the utmost importance that the judicial authorities, in the discharge of their duties in a criminal case, ascertain all the circumstances which may be
conducive to the consideration of the case concerned . It notes, furthermore, that the applicant has submitted no evidence to show that the information was collected and submitted to the Court for any other reason than in order to facilitate Ihe examination of the proceedings, which eventually ended in the applicant's acquittal . 27 . In the light of these considerations the Commission is satisfied that the data available to the police according to law was collected and used for the sole purpose of the enforcement of criminal law . The procurement of the information was furthermore in accordance with the law in that it was based on Article 22 of the Federal Constitutional Act concerning the obligation of the authorities to render mutual assistance to each other The Commission therefore concludes that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8, paragraph 1, of the Convention is lustitied under Article 8, paragraph 2, thereof as being necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of crime . 28 . It follows rhat the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convenlio n For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBL E
(TRADUCTION ) EN FAIT Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s par le requÃ©rant, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : 1 . Le requÃ©rant, de nationalitÃ© autrichienne, est nÃ© en 1954 et domiciliÃ© Ã Vienne . Il est Ã©tudiant . II est reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Commission par Me Georg Zanger, avocat Ã Vienne . 2 . Les griefs du requÃ©rant reposent sur le fait qu'Ã l'en croire, les autoritÃ©s autrichiennes le surveilleraient secrÃ©tement depuis l'Ã¢ge de sept ans . 3 . Le 16 juin 1976, des membres de l'organisation nÃ©o-fasciste Â« Aktion Neue Rechte Â», ci-aprÃ©s dÃ©nommÃ©e ANR, cÃ©lÃ©braient la Â« journÃ©e Â» dite de Â« l'unitÃ© allemande Â» devant l'UniversitÃ© de Vienne . Au mÃªme moment, une soixantaine d'Ã©tudiants - dont le requÃ©rant - participaient Ã une rÃ©union d'Ã©tudiants dans le grand amphithÃ©Ã¢tre de la facultÃ© de droit de l'UniversitÃ© . -1 53-
Ayant appris que des membres de l'ANR avaient provoquÃ© d'autres Ã©tudiants et avaient mÃªme eu recours contre eux Ã la force, ils dÃ©cidÃ¨rent d'organiser une manifestation anti-fasciste devant l'UniversitÃ© . Les amis du requÃ©rant ont alors, pour la plupart, quittÃ© la salle de confÃ©rence en vue de participer Ã cette manifestation Le requÃ©rant, par contre, est restÃ© dans l'amphithÃ©Ã©tre afin de rÃ©diger une rÃ©solution hostile Ã la dÃ©monstration de l'ANR . Ce n'est que par la suite que le requÃ©rant a appris que de violents incidents s'Ã©taient dÃ©roulÃ©s devant l'UniversitÃ© . 4 . A la demande de l'ANR et de certains de ses membres, des poursuites pÃ©nales ont WtÃ©rieurement Ã©tÃ© engagÃ©es contre le requÃ©rant devant le tribunal de premiÃ©re instance de Vienne . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© inculpÃ© de coups et blessures, dommages Ã la propriÃ©tÃ© et soustraction de biens, en violation des articles 83, paragraphe 1, 125 et 135, paragraphe 1 du code pÃ©nal autrichien . Ayant toutefois pu prouver qu'il n'avait pas participÃ© aux incidents, le requÃ©rant a en dÃ©finitive Ã©tÃ© acquittÃ© des charges portÃ©es contre lui . 5 . Le requÃ©rant allÃ©gue qu'aprÃ©s son acquittement, il persistait Ã croire que l'un des tÃ©moins avait portÃ© un faux tÃ©moignage durant le procÃ©s . C'est pourquoi il chargea son avocat de se procurer copie du dossier complet de son affaire . En Ã© tudiant ce dossier, le requÃ©rant a constatÃ© que son casier judiciaire, qui se trouvait entre les mains du tribunal, Ã©tait vierge . Il a toutefois dÃ©couvert aussi que la Direction de la police fÃ©dÃ©rale Ã Vienne ( Bundespolizeidirektion Wien) avait communiquÃ© au tribunal un rappo rt demandÃ© par cette Direction Ã son DÃ©partement de la stiretÃ© nationale IPolizeidirektion Wien, Staatspolizeiliches BÃ¼rol, concernant le caractÃ©re du requÃ©rant . 6 . Dans ce rapport il Ã©tait signalÃ©, entre autres, qu'une enquÃªte confidentielle effectuÃ©e Ã l'UniversitÃ© de Vienne, le . . . juin 1976, avait rÃ©vÃ©lÃ© qu'un certain M . X, membre de la KSV' et Ã¢gÃ© de 25 ans environ, aurait dirigÃ© l'action entreprise le 16 juin 1976 devant l'UniversitÃ© de Vienne contre les membres de l'ANR Selon ce mÃªme rapport, l'enquÃ©te avait rÃ©vÃ©lÃ© en outre que le suspect Ã©tait l'Ã©tudiant X . nÃ© le . . . . 1954, de nationalitÃ© autrichienne, cÃ©libataire, demeurant Ã . . . ., Vienne et connu des services de police . La StiretÃ© ajoutait qu'elle Ã©tait en possession des renseignements suivants concernant le requÃ©rant : au cours des annÃ©es 1961, 1963 et 1972, il avait participÃ© Ã des camps de vacances au chÃ¢teau de S ., dans la rÃ©gion de Klagenfurt CescampsÃ©taient organisÃ©s par l'Union dÃ©mocratique Â« KinderlandJunge Garde n . Du 26 au 29 octobre 1972 le requÃ©rant aurait en outresuivi Ã M . . . . un cours de formation s'adressant Ã des membres et des responsables du KPO" . Quant Ã l'annÃ©e 1974, il Ã©tait notÃ© que le requÃ©rant aurait Ã©tÃ© propriÃ©taire, rÃ©dacteur en chef, diffuseur etc . de la publication mensuelle
Une association d'Atudiants communistes . Le oani communiste autriCh,en
Â« . . . . . . . . . . Â», un organe du KSB Ã Vienne . Selon ledit rapport, le requÃ©rant serait aussi responsable du contenu de cette publication . Il Ã©tait enfin notÃ© que du 8 au 14 fÃ©vrier 1976 le requÃ©rant aurait participÃ© Ã un sÃ©minaire d'une semaine organisÃ© au centre de formation du KPO Â« . . . . . . . . . . Â» Ã M . . . . . . . . . ., Ã l'intention de militants et de responsables . Le requÃ©rant a appris l'existence de ce rapport de police le 8 septembre 1977, aprÃ¨s que le dossier de l'affaire lui eut Ã©tÃ© remis .
GRIEFS 7 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'avoir Ã©tÃ© en permanence, depuis l'Ã¢ge de 7 ans, surveillÃ© par les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes qui de ce fait se sont immiscÃ©es dans sa vie privÃ©e et dans l'exercice et de son droit de circuler librement IRecht auf FreizÃ¼gigkeitl, et de son droit Ã la libertÃ© d'opinion, de conscience et d'expression et Ã la libertÃ© de recevoir et de communiquer des informations ou des idÃ©es par tous les moyens, et de son droit Ã la libertÃ© de rÃ©union et Ã la libertÃ© d'association Ã des fins pacifiques . L'exercice de ses droits et libertÃ©s a en outre fait l'objet de restrictions illÃ©gales, du fait que depuis l'Ã¢ge de 7 ans pratiquement tous ses faits et gestes ont Ã©tÃ© contrdlÃ©s . C'est ainsi que dans un dossier intitulÃ© Â« Spitzelakten Â» son comportement privÃ© et social est intÃ©gralement consignÃ© . Contrairement aux dispositions lÃ©gislatives, il a en consÃ©quence Ã©tÃ© suivi par les autoritÃ©s bien qu'il n'ait jamais commis aucun dÃ©lit . Le requÃ©rant est par ailleurs d'avis que ses droits ont Ã©tÃ© violÃ©s du fait que les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes ont divulguÃ© au tribunal le contenu de leur rapport au cours des poursuites pÃ©nales engagÃ©es contre lui . Il ne peut par consÃ©quent s'empÃªcher de penser que cette divulgation a Ã©tÃ© faite dans l'intention de le faire apparaÃ®tre comme un individu peu sOr, voire suspect, au plan politique . Il voit dans cet agissement une ingÃ©rence intolÃ©rable des autoritÃ©s dans la procÃ©dure alors en cours, vu que le rapport devait Ã©tre utilisÃ© comme un Ã©lÃ©ment de preuve contre lui . Le requÃ©rant considÃ¨re la surveillance dont il est l'objet comme particuliÃ¨rement inquiÃ©tante, puisqu'on lui reproche ainsi d'Ã©tre membre d'organisations dÃ©mocratiques telles que le parti communiste autrichien, qui figure parmi les fondateurs de la RÃ©publique d'Autriche . Le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend que les articles 8, 9, 10, 11 et 14 de la Convention ont Ã©tÃ© violÃ©s puisque la surveillance dont il est l'objet est privÃ©e de toute base lÃ©gale et qu'A son avis lesdites dispositions garantissent le droit Ã la libertÃ© et le droit Ã l'exercice d'activitÃ©s politiques sans restriction . 8 . Le requÃ©rant affirme enfin qu'il n'existe aucune voie de recours Ikein ordentliches Rechtsmittell contre l'acte de surveillance en tant que tel . Ni l a
surveillance, ni l'Ã©tablissement d'un rapport de surveillance, ni la communication du rapport au tribunal ne procÃ©daient d'une dÃ©cision . Ce n'est que le . . . septembre 1977 que le requÃ©rant a pris connaissance des faits ayant motivÃ© sa prÃ©sente requÃªte et il estime par consÃ©quent avoir respectÃ© la rÃ©gle des six mois .
PROCEDURE DEVANT LA COMMISSIO N 9 . La prÃ©sente requÃªte a Ã©tÃ© introduite devant la Commission le 14 dÃ©cembre 1977 et enregistrÃ©e le 23 fÃ©vrier 1978 . La Commission a examinÃ© la question de la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte le 4 dÃ©cembre 1978 et dÃ©cidÃ©, conformÃ©ment au paragraphe 2 Ibl de l'article 42 de son RÃ©glement intÃ©rieur, de donner connaissance de la requÃªte au Gouvernement autrichien et de l'inviter Ã prÃ©senter par Ã©crit ses observations sur la question de la recevabilitÃ© . La Commission a considÃ©rÃ© que la requÃªte pourrait notamment soulever une questions sur le terrain de l'article 8 de la Convention . Les observations du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur sont datÃ©es du 16 fÃ©vrier 1979 et la rÃ©plique du requÃ©rant du 29 mars 1979 .
OBSERVATIONS DES PARTIE S Le Gouvernemen t 10 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a aftirmÃ© que le requÃ©rant n'avait jamais Ã©tÃ© surveillÃ© par les autoritÃ©s . Les renseignements de la Direction de la police fÃ©dÃ©rale Ã Vienne ont Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ©s au tribunal pÃ©nal de Vienne dans le cadre des poursuites pÃ©nales engagÃ©es Ã la suite des violents incidents qui s'Ã©taient dÃ©roulÃ©s devant l'UniversitÃ© de Vienne le 16 juin 1976 . Deux Ã©tudiants, membres de l'organisation politique ANR (Aktion Neue Rechte), qui avaient distribuÃ© des tracts devant l'UniversitÃ©, avaient signalÃ© avoir Ã©tÃ© attaquÃ©s et frappÃ©s par des opposants politiques . Les agresseurs leur avaient en outre arrachÃ© les tracts qu'ils allaient distribuer . La Direction de la police fÃ©dÃ©rale Ã Vienne ignorait totalement qui Ã©taient les auteurs de la prÃ©tendue agression mais, dans une lettre du . . . juin 1976 adressÃ©e Ã la Direction, l'ANR a dÃ©signÃ© le requÃ©rant comme Ã©tant l'auteur . La Direction Ã©tait alors tenue de procÃ©der Ã l'indispensable enquÃ©te sur un dÃ©Gt qui Ã©tait attribuÃ© au requÃ©rant et constituait une violation des articles 83, paragraphe 1, 125 et 125, paragraphe 1 du code pÃ©nal . Le Gouvernement .1 dÃ©fendeur a expliquÃ© en outre que, l'incident d u 16 juin 1976 ayant de toute Ã©vidence Ã©clatÃ© pour des raisons d'ordre politique, c'est le DÃ©partement de la sOretÃ© nationale de la Direction de la police fÃ©dÃ©rale Ã Vienne qui avait Ã©tÃ© chargÃ© de l'enquÃªte . Le DÃ©partement de la sOretÃ© nationale est un service chargÃ© par la loi des activitÃ©s de police concernant les agissements illÃ©gaux commis pour des motifs politiques .
12 . Aux termes de l'article 3 du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale toutes les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes en matiÃ©re pÃ©nale Ã©taient tenues d'Â« examiner avec la mÃªme attention aussi bien les circonstances tendant Ã charger l'accusÃ© (au sens autrichien du mot) que les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve Ã sa dÃ©charge Â» . En raison du contexte politique de l'incident il importait, pour l'administration des preuves, de dÃ©couvrir tous les indices militant en faveur de la participation des suspects Ã cet incident ou contre leur participation . En prÃ©sence d'actes dÃ©lictueux il incombe aux services de police de vÃ©rifier toutes les circonstances susceptibles d'intÃ©resser le tribunal pÃ©nal chargÃ© de juger les faits . En l'espÃ©ce, des renseignements pouvaient Ã©tre trouvÃ©s par les donnÃ©es rÃ©unies en application de la loi sur l'immatriculation auprÃ©s de la police IMeldegesetzl et des lois sur la presse . 13 . C'est donc exclusivement au cours de l'enquÃ©te ordonnÃ©e Ã la suite de la dÃ©nonciation d'un dÃ©lit que la Direction de la police fÃ©dÃ©rale Ã Vienne a rÃ©uni Ã partir de ses archives administratives les faits qui pouvaient permettre de conclure, le cas Ã©chÃ©ant, Ã une motivation politique . Ces archives Ã©taient tenues conformÃ©ment Ã la lÃ©gislation rÃ©gissant l'immatriculation Ã la police et la presse .
14 . La SOretÃ© nationale disposait des Ã©lÃ©ments d'information suivants : Des listes de membres de groupes privÃ©s soumises, conformÃ©ment au paragraphe 3 de l'article 5 de la loi de 1954 relative Ã l'immatriculation sur les registres de police, par les personnes chargÃ©es de faire les dÃ©clarations au bureau d'immatriculation et oÃ¹ figuraient les noms des participants aux camps de vacances organisÃ©s par la Â« Demokratische Vereinigung Kinderland - Junge Garde Â» au chÃ¢teau de S . en 1961 et 1963 et des participants au cours de formation organisÃ© Ã l'intention de membres et des responsables du parti communistes autrichien (KPO) Ã M . . . . en 1972 . Selon le Gouvernement, la note qui signalait qu'en 1972 aussi il y avait une Â« Vormerkung wie 1961 Â» Ã©tait erronÃ©e . Pour 1972, une inscription dans les registres de police - conformÃ©ment au paragraphe 3 de l'article 5 de ladite loi de 1954 - faisait apparaÃ®tre les noms des participants Ã un camp organisÃ© par la Â« Vereinigung Kinderland Junge Garde n, Ã T . Le requÃ©rant figurait parmi les participants inscrits . Il ressortait en outre de la liste Ã©tablie conformÃ©ment au paragraphe 3 de l'article 5 de ladite loi que les participants Ã ce camp avaient Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ©s au bureau d'immatriculation par Â« Kinderland - Junge Garde n, en d'autres termes par l'organisateur lui-mÃªme . Les dÃ©clarations concernant les participants aux camps organisÃ©s en 1961 et 1963 et au cours de la formation organisÃ© en 1972 avaient Ã©tÃ© fournies de la mÃ©me maniÃ©re ;
b . Une dÃ©claration dÃ©posÃ©e Ã la Direction de la police fÃ©dÃ©rale Ã Vienne par le requÃ©rant lui-mÃ¨me et concernant le projet de publicalion du pÃ©riodique Â« . . . . . . . . . . u ; c . Les noms des participants Ã un sÃ©minaire d'une semaine organisÃ© Ã l'intention de militants et de responsables au centre de formation Â« . . . . . . . . . . n du KPO Ã M . ont Ã©tÃ© signalÃ©s au Bureau d'immatriculation par le directeur du centre, qui a prÃ©sentÃ© Ã ce bureau le livre des visiteurs dont la tenue est obligatoire en vertu de l'article 8 de la loi de 1972 relative Ã l'immatriculation auprÃ©s de la police . 15 . En l'espÃ©ce, les services de police se sont bornÃ©s Ã rassembler pour les besoins de la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale les donnÃ©es administratives dont ils disposaient conformÃ©ment Ã la loi . Les donnÃ©es ainsi recueillies Ã©taient destinÃ©es exclusivement Ã la procÃ©dure judiciaire engagÃ©e ultÃ©rieurement et n'ont, en fait, pas portÃ© prÃ©judice au requÃ©rant, comme son acquittement l'a en dÃ©fintive montrÃ© . Il ressort donc de ce qui prÃ©cÃ©de que le requÃ©rant n'Ã©tait placÃ© ni sous la surveillance du DÃ©partement de la sOretÃ© nationale de la Direction de la police fÃ©dÃ©rale Ã Vienne, ni sous celle d'aucun autre service de police . Les droits garantis par la Convention n'ont par consÃ©quent pas Ã©tÃ© violÃ©s . 16 . Par dÃ©sir d'Ãªtre complet, le Gouvernemeni a soulignÃ© en outre que le fait de tenir registre de donnÃ©es, ou de communiquer celles-ci en vertu de l'obligation d'assistance mutuelle des autoritÃ©s (Art . 22 de la Loi constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©ralel, ne saurait constituer une violation du droit de toute personne au respect de sa vie privÃ©e et familiale, ne serait-ce qu'en vertu du paragraphe 2 de l'article 8 de la Convention . 17 . Pour les motifs susmentionnÃ©s, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a demandÃ© qu'en vertu de l'article 27 de la Convention la requÃªte soit dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable pour dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement . Le requÃ©ran t 18 . Le requÃ©rant a fait valoir, en premier lieu, que l'affirmation selon laquelle il n'avait jamais Ã©tÃ© surveillÃ© par les autoritÃ©s Ã©tait contraire aux faits de la cause . Rien que les listes soumises par le Gouvernement renseignent sur le champ d'activitÃ© de la SOretÃ© nationale IStaatspolizeil en Autriche . Certes, les registres tenus conformÃ©ment Ã la loi relative Ã l'immatriculation ne rÃ©vÃ©laient aucune surveillance illÃ©gale . Toutefois, dÃ©s lors que divers services communiquaient de telles informations Ã la SÃ»retÃ© nationale, Ã la demande de celle-ci, et que celle-ci les rÃ©unissait, il y avait usage abusif de l'information sous la forme d'une surveillance centralisÃ©e de la personne . De l'avis du requÃ©rant, le Gouvernement a lui-mÃªme produit la preuve de la surveillance que le requÃ©rant incrimine .
19 . II est vrai que toutes les circonstances qui tendent Ã charger ou Ã disculper un accusÃ© doivent Ãªtre examinÃ©es avec la mÃªme attention et que les autoritÃ©s peuvent porter Ã la connaissance du tribunal de telles circonstances . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur n'a toutefois aucunement expliquÃ© l'allÃ©gation formulÃ©e en l'espÃªce . Le but de la prÃ©sente requÃ©te est moins de se plaindre que des Ã© lÃ©ments Ã charge aient Ã©tÃ© transmis Ã© ventuellement au tribunal que de s'Ã©lever contre le fait que les donnÃ©es de la SÃ¹retÃ© nationale ont Ã©tÃ© versÃ©es au dossier . Le requÃ©rant reconnaÃ®t qu'on ne saurait aucunement invoquer ces donnÃ©es ni pour l'accuser ni pour le disculper . Il se demande en outre quelle importance il pouvait y avoir, au cas oÃ¹ il aurait Ã©tÃ© reconnu coupable de coups et blessures volontaires, de savoir qu'il avait participÃ© Ã un camp de vacances pour enfants alors qu'il avait sept ans . Le Gouvernement n'a pas non plus fournir d'explications Ã ce sujet . 20 . Le requÃ©rant ajoute qu'il n'Ã©tait ni sÃ©rieux ni pertinent d'affirmer que les donnÃ©es avaient Ã©tÃ© rÃ©unies exclusivement en vue de la procÃ©dure judiciaire et qu'il n'en subissait aucun prÃ©judice . A son avis, le Gouvernement voulait ainsi Ã©luder le fait qu'en rÃ©alitÃ© les autoritÃ©s avaient produit ces documents dans la seule intention d'influencer illÃ©galement la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale . Au regard du droit pÃ©nal autrichien il Ã©tait indubitablement sans pertinence aucune de savoir si quelqu'un avait ou non paÂ«icipÃ©, Ã l'Ã¢ge de sept ans, Ã un camp pour enfants organisÃ© par un parti politique . La compilation de telles donnÃ©es et leur production dans une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale Ã©taient contraires aux droits de l'homme, tels qu'ils sont garantis . 21 . Pour ces motifs les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils sont exposÃ©s dans la requÃ©te, doivent Ãªtre admis comme Ã© tablis . Le requÃ©rant demande en consÃ©quence que sa cause soit dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable .
EN DROI T 22 . Le requÃ©rant affirme qu'il a Ã©tÃ© surveillÃ© par les autoritÃ©s autrichiennes . Il allÃ©gue notamment une violation de l'article 8 de la Convention, qui est ainsi conÃ§u : Â« 1 . Toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e et familiale, de son domicile et de sa correspondance . 2 . II ne peut y avoir ingÃ©rence d'une autoritÃ© publique dans l'exercice de ce droit que pour autant que cette ingÃ©rence est prÃ©vue par la loi et qu'elle constitue une mesure qui, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, est nÃ©cessaire Ã la sÃ©curitÃ© nationale, Ã la sÃ¹retÃ© publique, au bien-Ãªtr e
Ã©coriomique du pays, Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales, Ã© la protection de la santÃ© ou de la morale, ou Ã© la protection des droits et libertÃ©s d'autrui . Â» 23 . La Commission relÃ©ve en premier lieu que le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend ne disposer d'aucun recours en droit autrichien quant aux griefs qu'il fait valoir dans sa requÃªte . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur n'a pas contestÃ© cette affirmation . La Commission peut donc admettre qu'aucune question ne se pose sur le terrain de l'article 26 de la Convention . 24 . La question qu'il appartient alors Ã la Commission d'examiner en l'espÃ©ce est de savoir si les griefs du requÃ©rant font apparaitre quelque violation de l'article 8 de la Convention . Il apparait que le requÃ©rant se plaint en particulier que les renseignements dont les services de police disposaient conformÃ©ment aux lois sur l'immatriculation Ã© la police et sur la presse, aient Ã©tÃ© rÃ©unis par la Direction de la police fÃ©dÃ©rale Ã Vienne et produits dans la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale engagÃ©e contre lui . 25 . La Commission fait observer en premier lieu qu'en l'espÃ©ce, la compilation de donnÃ©es a Ã©tÃ© faite aux fins d'une enquÃ©te sur des accusations prÃ©cises dans une affaire pÃ©nale, et qu'on ne saurait voir lÃ une mesure de surveillance . Il faut noter en outre que le requÃ©rant n'a produit aucun Ã©lÃ©ment de preuve attestant qu'il a, personnellement, en quelque circonstance, fait l'objet d'une surveillance secrÃ¨te de la part des autoritÃ©s autrichiennes . NÃ©anmoins, la question se pose de savoir s'il y a eu ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice de son droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e, garanti par l'article 8, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, - du fait que les informations auxquelles la police avait accÃ¨s ont Ã©tÃ© rÃ©unies et prÃ©sentÃ©es au tribunal dans le cadre de la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale engagÃ©e contre le requÃ©rant . La Commission considÃ¨re toutefois que cette question peut demeurer non rÃ©solue, puisque l'ingÃ©rence, si ingÃ©rence il y a eu, pouvait se justifier aux termes de l'article 8, paragraphe 2, pour les raisons qui suivent . 26 . II apparait Ã©vident que le rassemblement des donnÃ©es administratives, auxquelles la police avait accÃ©s, n'a commencÃ© qu'une fois la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale engagÃ©e contre le requÃ©rant . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a affirmÃ© que les renseignements Ã©taient exclusivement destinÃ©s Ã cette procÃ©dure . Les donnÃ©es disponibles grÃ¢ce aux prescriptions de la loi sur l'immatriculation Ã la police et des lois sur la presse, ont pu fournir des indices . De l'avis de la Commission, il est incontestablement de la plus haute importance que les autoritÃ©s judiciaires appelÃ©es Ã traiter une affaire pÃ©nale, Ã©tablissent toutes les circonstances utiles Ã l'examen du cas . Elle constate en outre que le requÃ©rant n'a produit aucun Ã©lÃ©ment de preuve attestant que lesdits renseignements auraient Ã©tÃ© rÃ©unis et prÃ©sentÃ©s au tribunal pour des raisons autres que celles de faciliter l'examen du cas, qui s'est en dÃ©finitive terminÃ© par l'acquittement du requArant .
27 . A la lumiÃ©re de ces considÃ©rations, la Commission est convaincue que les donnÃ©es auxquelles la police avait accÃ©s conformÃ©ment Ã lwloi ont Ã©tÃ© rÃ©unies et utilisÃ©es Ã seule fin d'appliquer la lÃ©gislation pÃ©nale . Par ailleurs, lesdits renseignements ont Ã©tÃ© obtenus conformÃ©ment Ã la loi, c'est-A-dire conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 22 de la Loi constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale, qui concerne l'obligation d'assistance mutuelle des autoritÃ©s . La Commission en conclut que l'ingÃ©rence subie par le requÃ©rant dans l'exercice du droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e, au sens de l'article 8, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, est justifiÃ©e, en vertu du paragraphe 2 du mÃ©me article, comme nÃ©cessaire, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, pour la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales . 28 . II s'ensuit que la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . Pour ces motifs, la Commission DECLARE LA REQUETE IRRECEVABLE .
- 161 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 04/05/1979Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page