Human rights: Two cases currently before the European Court
01 January 1991
Human rights: Two cases currently before the European Court
artdoc December=1991
In March 1991 the Commission held admissible a complaint relating
to non-access to security files by their subjects. The background
to the case of V v Netherlands was a raid in November 1984 by an
anti-militarist group, Onkruit, on the Utrecht offices of the 450
Counter-Intelligence Detachment of the Army Intelligence Service
(450-CID). The raiders found the names of 178 civilians and 64
organisations `noted' on the planning board of the Infiltration
Influencing Outline, as dangerous to the State. Fifteen of the
civilians had a special red tag to indicate that they were
considered `hazardous to military mobilisation'. The files
themselves were held elsewhere, and material seen by Onkruit
suggested in addition that there was illegal collaboration
between 450-CID and the civilian Intelligence Security Service
(BVD), the Police Intelligence Service (PID) and possibly the
Central Detective Intelligence Service (CRI). The information was
published, and some of the named individuals requested access to
the information on them in the files of 450-CID and the BVD.
Ministers in charge of both departments refused to acknowledge
the existence of the files. Dutch law allowed disclosure of
information by public bodies to be withheld on grounds of
national security. The applicants claimed a violation of their
right to respect for their private life, under Article 8 of the
European Convention on Human Rights, and said that the
observation and registration by the security services, and the
subsequent refusal to disclose the files, could not be justified
by national security. The Commission declared the complaint
admissible on 4 March 1991.
The second case Niemitz v Germany, declared admissible on 5
April 1990, concerned a search of a lawyer's office under a
search warrant to seize documents disclosing the identity of a
criminal suspect, KW, and his whereabouts, after the lawyer had
refused to disclose these. The suspect was connected with a
company which used the lawyers' office as a forwarding address.
The Commission held admissible a complaint under Article 8 that
the search was a violation of the applicant's privacy.
Human Rights Law Journal Vol 12 nos 5, 6-7, pp 219, 284.