ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 25.02.1997"z ПРОТИВ ФИНЛЯНДИИ" [рус. (извлечение), англ.]

врача и пациента, или документов, относящихся к этому делу.
II. Указывая, что десятилетнее "ограничение срока секретности", установленное финскими судами, в данном случае было слишком коротким, Суд тем самым подразумевает, что открытый доступ к медицинским данным может быть разрешен только после истечения достаточного периода времени.
Не предрешая окончательных выводов о том, что может быть приемлемо в отношении другой информации в архивных делах преступников, я считаю, что медицинские сведения в таких картотеках должны оставаться секретными без ограничения времени.
Заинтересованность в гласности судебной деятельности недостаточна, чтобы оправдать разглашение конфиденциальных данных даже по прошествии многих лет.
III. В данном Решении Суд еще раз ссылается на пределы усмотрения национальных властей.
Я полагаю, что пора Суду отказаться от этого понятия. Он слишком долго не решается отказаться от этой банальной фразы и от релятивизма, который скрывается за ней.
В определенных сферах возможно поле усмотрения. Например, совершенно естественно, что уголовный суд выносит приговор - в рамках наказаний, установленных законодательством, - в соответствии с его оценкой серьезности дела.
Но там, где дело касается прав человека, нет места для пределов усмотрения, которые бы позволяли государствам решать, что приемлемо, а что нет.
В этом вопросе граница, которую нельзя переступать, должна быть как можно более четкая и ясная. Суд, а не государство самостоятельно должен решать этот вопрос, и точка зрения Суда должна применяться к каждому в рамках юрисдикции каждого государства.
Пустые фразы о пределах усмотрения государства, повторяемые в решениях Суда уже слишком долго, являются ненужными уклончивыми иносказаниями, которые служат только для малопонятного утверждения, что государство может делать все, что Суд не считает несовместимым с правами человека.
Нужно как можно скорее отказаться от такой терминологии, порочной в принципе и бесполезной на практике.



EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF Z v. FINLAND
JUDGMENT
(Strasbourg, 25.II.1997)
In the case of Z v. Finland <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> The case is numbered 9/1996/627/811. The first number is the case"s position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case"s position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the relevant provisions of Rules of Court B <*>, as a Chamber composed of the following judges:
--------------------------------
<*> Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9).
Mr R. Ryssdal, President,
Mr {F. Golcuklu} <*>,
Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Mr C. Russo,
Mr J. De Meyer,
Mr R. Pekkanen,
Mr G. Mifsud Bonnici,
Mr J. Makarczyk,
Mr B. Repik,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P.J. Mahoney, Deputy Registrar,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
Having deliberated in private on 31 August 1996 and 25 January 1997,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 25 January 1996, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47). It originated in an application (no. 22009/93) against the Republic of Finland lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a Finnish national, Mrs Z, on 21 May 1993.
The Commission"s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Finland recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention (art. 8, art. 13).
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 35 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court B, the applicant stated that she wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyers who would represent her (Rule 31).
3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr R. Pekkanen, the elected judge of Finnish nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 4 (b)). On 8 February 1996, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr F. {Golcuklu}, Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mr B. Walsh, Mr C. Russo, Mr J. De Meyer, Mr G. Mifsud Bonnici and Mr B. Repik (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 5) (art. 43). Subsequently Mr J. Makarczyk, substitute judge, replaced Mr Walsh, who was unable to take part in the further consideration of the case (Rules 22 para. 1 and 24 para. 1).
4. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 6), Mr Ryssdal, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Finnish Government ("the Government"), the applicant"s lawyer and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 39 para. 1 and 40). Pursuant to the order made in consequence on 25 March 1996, the Registrar received the applicant"s memorial on 29 May 1996 and the Government"s memorial on 31 May 1996. On 5 July 1996 the Secretary to the Commission indicated that the Delegate would submit his observations at the hearing.
5. On various dates between 5 July and 9 August 1996 the Commission produced a number of documents from the proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the President"s instructions.
6. On 20 June 1996 the Registrar received from the Government a request to hold the hearing set down for 29 August 1996 in camera. The President invited the Delegate of the Commission and the applicant to comment on the Government"s request. On 24 June 1996, the Registrar received the applicant"s observations on the matter.
In the light of the observations submitted by the Government and the applicant and the sensitive nature of the case, the Chamber decided on 26 June 1996 that the hearing should be held in camera, being satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances for the purposes of Rule 18 warranting a derogation from the principle of publicity applying to the Court"s hearings.
7. In accordance with the President"s and the Chamber"s decisions, the hearing took place in camera in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 29 August 1996. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.
There appeared before the Court:
(a) for the Government
Mr H. Rotkirch, Director of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Agent,
Mr A. Kosonen, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, co-Agent,
Mr I. Liukkonen, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Justice,
Mr J. Tenneberg, Legal Adviser, National Board of Medical Affairs, Advisers;
(b) for the Commission
Mr P. Lorenzen, Delegate;
(c) for the applicant
Mr M. Fredman, asianaja, advokat,
Mr M. Scheinin, Associate Professor of Law, University of Helsinki, Counsel.
The Court heard addresses by Mr Lorenzen, Mr Fredman, Mr Scheinin, Mr Rotkirch and Mr Kosonen, and also replies to its questions.
8. On 1 October 1996, the Government supplied the Court with further particulars in reply to a question put at the hearing.
AS TO THE FACTS
I. Particular circumstances of the case
A. Introduction
9. The applicant is a Finnish national, resident in Finland, and was at the time of the events which gave rise to her complaints under the Convention married to X, who was not Finnish. They divorced on 22 September 1995. They are both infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
10. On 10 March 1992 the Helsinki City Court (raastuvanoikeus, {radstuvuratten) convicted X and sentenced him to a suspended term of imprisonment for rape on O. on 12 December 1991. The City Court held the trial in camera and ordered that the documents submitted in the case remain confidential for a certain period.
11. On 19 March 1992 X was informed of the results of a blood test performed on 6 March 1992, indicating that he was HIV-positive.
B. Further complaints of sexual
offences lodged against X
12. In early March 1992, following a complaint of a sexual offence lodged by M., the police opened an investigation into attempted manslaughter, suspecting X of having deliberately subjected M. to a risk of infection with HIV on 1 March.
According to the facts as established by the Commission, during a police interview on 5 March 1992 M. identified X as the perpetrator and the police informed her that X"s spouse, the applicant, was HIV-positive. On 10 April 1992, the police advised M. that X was also infected.
At the hearing before the Court the Government disputed the Commission"s finding that the police had informed M. that the applicant was an HIV carrier. The Delegate replied that the finding had been based on corroborative evidence in the police investigation record and the minutes of the ensuing proceedings before the City Court (see paragraph 19 below).
13. M."s boyfriend T. met the applicant in mid-March 1992 and asked her whether her husband was an HIV carrier. On 6 April 1992 T. telephoned her and cited passages from confidential court documents relating to the trial mentioned in paragraph 10 above. On 14 April T. was interviewed by the police as to the content of this conversation.
14. On 7 April 1992 the police attempted to interview the applicant but, as she was married to X, she relied on her right under Finnish law not to give evidence against her spouse (chapter 17, Article 20 para. 1, of the Code of Judicial Procedure ({oikeudenkaymiskaari, rattegangsbalk})).
15. On 22 April 1992 the public prosecutor charged X with sexual assault on M. On 20 May 1992 M. brought a charge against X of attempted manslaughter.
16. On 10 September 1992, following complaints of rape lodged by P.-L. and P., X was arrested and detained on remand, on suspicion of attempted manslaughter by having raped the complainants earlier that month and thereby deliberately subjected them to a risk of HIV infection.
17. On 14 September 1992 the police interviewed the applicant but she again refused to give evidence against her spouse. She feared that the documents in the case, including any statement she made, would not remain confidential.
18. On 18 September 1992 R. lodged a complaint with the police against X for rape committed on 19 December 1991. The police officer who recorded the complaint added to the record a statement that the applicant had already been found to be HIV-positive in 1990.
The Government submitted at the Court"s hearing that it was R. who had told this to the police.
The police opened an investigation into attempted manslaughter in this case also.
On 7 October and 2 December 1992 and 24 March 1993, the public prosecutor read out in court charges against X of attempted manslaughter in respect of offences committed against M. on 1 March 1992, against P. on 10 September 1992 and against P.-L. on 5 and 6 September 1992. Such charges were also brought by P.-L. on 16 December 1992 and by R. on 19 May 1993 in relation to offences committed respectively on 31 August 1992 and 19 December 1991.
C. Orders obliging the applicant"s doctors and
psychiatrist to give evidence
19. On 22 April 1992, at the City Court"s first hearing, held in public, X refused to reply to a question put by M."s counsel as to whether the applicant was also an HIV carrier.
At a further hearing on 6 May 1992, the City Court decided at the parties" request that the case should be heard in camera. M. confirmed that she had been informed by the police that the applicant was HIV-positive and T. gave evidence on the content of his telephone conversation with the applicant on 6 April 1992 (see paragraph 13 above).
20. On 18 May 1992 and with X"s consent, L., senior doctor at the hospital where X and the applicant had been treated, transmitted copies of X"s medical records to the public prosecutor. These had been edited so as to omit all references to the applicant.
21. The City Court summoned the applicant to appear before it as a witness on 20 May 1992, but she again relied on her right not to give evidence in a case concerning her husband.
22. On 27 May 1992 M."s counsel informed the public prosecutor that the copies of X"s medical records appeared to be incomplete. That same day the public prosecutor asked the police to obtain statements from senior doctor L. and any other doctors who had been treating X, whether as experts or ordinary witnesses, in order to obtain information from them on when X had become aware of his HIV infection.
23. On 12 August 1992, despite his objections, the City Court ordered senior doctor L. to give evidence. He disclosed to the court medical data concerning the applicant which had been omitted from the copies of X"s medical records referred to in paragraph 20 above.
The City Court, by way of an interim measure, ordered that the court file, including the transcripts of senior doctor L."s evidence, be kept confidential.
24. At the hearings of the City Court on 23 September and 18 November 1992, X refused to answer a question put by counsel for the complainants (M., P.-L., P. and R.) as to whether the applicant was HIV-positive. On 30 December 1992, counsel asked him when he had become aware that she was infected. However, X again refused to answer.
25. On 23 September 1992 senior doctor L. complained to the parliamentary ombudsman (eduskunnan oikeusasiamies, riksdagens justitieombudsman) about the court decision ordering him to give evidence. In an opinion of 5 February 1993 the parliamentary ombudsman expressed the view that the domestic law had not been violated and that the City Court had properly balanced the public interest in investigating crime against the applicant"s interests in protecting the confidentiality of the information in question.
26. At a court hearing on 27 January

"СОГЛАШЕНИЕ МЕЖДУ ПРАВИТЕЛЬСТВОМ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ И ПРАВИТЕЛЬСТВОМ РЕСПУБЛИКИ КАЗАХСТАН О ТЕХНИЧЕСКОМ И ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОМ СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВЕ И ИНТЕГРАЦИИ В НЕФТЕГАЗОВЫХ ОТРАСЛЯХ"(Заключено в г. Москве 25.02.1997)  »
Международное законодательство »
Читайте также