EIT: Ilman kotiestintämääräystä tehty kotietsintä loukkasi yksityisyyden suojaa, mutta ei tehnyt oikeudenkäynnistä epäoikeudenmukaista

2.2.2017 | Oikeusuutiset

Markku Fredman

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on Belgiaa koskeneessa tuoreessa ratkaisussaan arvioinut tilannetta, jossa tutkintatuomari oli antanut kotietsintämääräyksen tiettyyn asuntoon, mutta poliisi oli paikalle mennessään tehnyt etsinnän myös kerrostalossa sijainneeseen toiseen asuntoon. Koska ykstyisyyden suojaan puuttumisen poikkeuksia tulee tulkita ahtaasti, oli menettelyllä loukattu EIS 8 artiklaa.

EIT kuitenkin toisti kantansa siitä, että yksityisyyden suojan loukkaus ei automaattisesti tarkoita sitä, että laittomasti hankittua aineistoa ei voitaisi hyödyntää oikeudenkäynnissä. Kun valittajalla oli ollut tehokkaat mahdollisuudet kyseenalaistaa laittomasti hankitun materiaalin luotettavuus ja kun kansalliset tuomioistuimet olivat huolellisesti puninneet näyttöä asiassa, ei asiaa kokonaisuutena tarkastellen katsottu EIS 6 artiklaa loukatun.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

In [a] Chamber judgment in the case of Kalnėnienė v. Belgium (application no. 40233/07) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights,
no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), and
no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken together with Article 8.

The case concerned a search carried out at Ms Kalnėnienė’s home and the use of evidence thus obtained in the criminal trial which resulted in her conviction.

The Court found in particular that the search of Ms Kalnėnienė’s home had been an interference with her rights as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, and more particularly of her right to respect for her home; it further noted that this interference did not have a legal basis and had not been in accordance with the law, in that the search had taken place without a specific warrant issued by an investigating judge.

The Court held, however, that the criminal proceedings had not been contrary to the requirements of a fair trial, noting among other points that Ms Kalnėnienė had been able to challenge the evidence thus gathered through three tiers of the domestic courts and to oppose its use; that her conviction had also been based on evidence other than that obtained during the contested search; and that there was nothing to suggest that the domestic courts’ assessment had been arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable, or that the rights of the defence had not been adequately respected.

The Court also held that Ms Kalnėnienė had had available to her domestic remedies enabling her to seek redress for her complaint in respect of Article 8 of the Convention, in particular by bringing a claim for compensation against the State on the basis of Article 1382 of the Civil Code.