EIT:n suurelta jaostolta tulossa ratkaisu Ruotsia koskevassa valitusasiassa

6.11.2013 | Oikeusuutiset

Markku Fredman

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen (EIT) suuri jaosto antaa 12.11. tuomion valituksessa, jossa on kyse siitä, loukattiinko valittajan oikeutta yksityisyyden suojaan, kun häntä kuvattiin alaikäisenä alasti, mutta kuvaajaa ei kansallisen lainsäädännön vuoksi voitu rangaista kuvaamisesta.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

The applicant, Eliza Söderman, is a Swedish national who was born in 1987 and lives in Ludvika (Sweden).

In 2002, when she was 14 years old, she discovered that her stepfather had attempted to secretly film her naked by hiding a video camera in the bathroom, which was in recording mode and directed towards the part of the room where she would undress to take a shower. Immediately afterwards the film was burned by her mother without anyone having seen it.

Ms Söderman’s mother reported the incident to the police about two years later. The stepfather was prosecuted for sexual molestation, and Ms Söderman submitted a compensation claim for violation of her personal integrity, to be joined to the criminal proceedings. In 2006, the stepfather, who admitted to having tried to film her with a hidden camera, was convicted of sexual molestation by the first instance court and ordered to pay damages. However, he was acquitted on appeal in 2007. The appeal court found that although his motive had been to film the girl for a sexual purpose, the act could not be covered by the provision on sexual molestation as he had not intended for her to find out about the filming. The court pointed out that there was no general prohibition in Swedish law against filming an individual without his or her consent. While the act in question was a violation of the girl’s personal integrity, the stepfather could not be held criminally responsible for the isolated act of filming her without her knowledge. The appeal court also noted that the stepfather’s act might have theoretically constituted attempted child pornography, but such a charge had not been brought, therefore the court could not examine whether he could be held responsible for that crime. The appeal on cassation was dismissed by the Supreme Court in December 2007.