ECtHR rules disclosure of man’s KGB past violated his right to respect for private life

The court held today in the case of Sõro v. Estonia that there had been a violation of article 8 – the right to respect for private life of the ECHR.

Mihhail Sõro, an Estonian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Tartu, complained about the fact that information about his employment during the Soviet era as a driver for the Committee for State Security of the USSR(the KGB) had been published in the Estonian State Gazette in 2004.

The ECtHR found that in Mr Sõro’s case this measure had been disproportionate to the aims sought.

In particular, under the relevant national legislation, information about all employees of the former security services – including drivers, as in Mr Sõro’s case – was published, regardless of the specific function they had performed.

From 1980 to 1991 Mr Sõro was employed as a driver by the Estonian branch of the KGB.

In February 2004 the Estonian Internal Security Service presented him with a notice according to which he had been registered under the national legislation on “Disclosure of Persons who Have Served in or Co-operated with Security Organisations or Intelligence or Counterintelligence Organisations of Armed Forces of States which Have Occupied Estonia” (“the Disclosure Act”).

Under the Disclosure Act, which had entered into force in 1995, the persons concerned were to be registered and information about their service or cooperation with the security or intelligence organisations was to be made public unless they had made a confession about it to the Estonian Internal Security Service within a year from the Act’s entry into force.

The notice received by Mr Sõro stated that an announcement about his past employment would be published in an appendix to the State Gazette.

It stated that the person concerned had the right to have access to the documents proving his or her links to the security or intelligence organisations and to contest that information before the Estonian Internal Security Service or the courts.

According to Mr Sõro, his request to be shown the material gathered in respect of him was not met.

The Estonian government contested that allegation.

In June 2004 the announcement about Mr Sõro’s having worked for the Committee for State Security as a driver was published in the appendix to theState Gazette, both in its printed version and on the Internet.

He subsequently complained to the chancellor of justice, who, in a report to the county’s parliament, concluded that the Disclosure Act was unconstitutional, in particular because information on all employees of the security and intelligence organisations was made public irrespective of whether they had merely performed technical tasks not related to the main functions of the organisations.

However, the parliament’s Constitutional Law Committee disagreed with this assessment and the chancellor of justice did not bring constitutional review proceedings.

In 2006, Mr Sõro lodged a complaint before the administrative court, asking for the text published in the Gazette to be declared unlawful and, in particular, to delete the word “occupier”, (in the reference to states having occupied Estonia.

He noted in particular that he had never been accused of or provided with any evidence showing that he had participated in the forceful occupation of the Estonian territory.

He asserted that he had only worked for the Committee for State Securityas a driver and did not know anything about gathering information.

Moreover, as a result of the publication of the announcement he had lost his work and he had been a victim of groundless accusations by other people.

The administrative court dismissed his complaint, noting in particular that he had failed to contest the notice with which he had been presented.

That decision was upheld by the appeal court and, in February 2008, the country’s supreme court declined to hear Mr Sõro’s appeal.