Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.10.2009 "Дело "Пасько (Pasko) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

uld be defined in a federal statute, and that such a list had first been defined in the federal law of 6 October 1997 introducing changes and amendments to the State Secrets Act of the Russian Federation.
75. In so far as the applicant referred to Mr Nikitin's case, the Court notes the Government's argument that the offences imputed to Mr Nikitin were committed in August and September 1995, when Presidential Decree No. 1203 was not yet in force. The first-instance court in its judgment of 29 December 1999 directly referred to this circumstance as the ground for Mr Nikitin's acquittal, stating that the classification of information as a State secret prior to 30 November 1995 had been arbitrary and not based on law. However, the first-instance court does not seem to have doubted that from that date onwards there was a sufficient legal basis for criminal prosecution for disclosure of State secrets. Admittedly, the trial court stated that the respective requirement of Article 29 § 4 of the Russian Constitution was complied with in full only when the amendment of 6 October 1997 entered into force, but it also consistently held that the State Secrets Act in its original version, applied in conjunction with the Presidential Decree of 30 November 1995, could have constituted a proper legal basis for bringing charges for disclosure of State secrets (see paragraph 45 above).
76. When giving its ruling on appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed that during the period that Mr Nikitin committed his acts there had been no list of information classified as State secrets, and therefore the information that he had collected and disclosed could not be said to have contained State secrets. It is true that the appellate court also stated that such a list had first been defined following the enactment of the amendment of 6 October 1997 to the State Secrets Act; however, it did not express any opinion as to whether prior to the enactment of the amendment, the application of the State Secrets Act, taken together with the Presidential Decree of 30 November 1995, would have sufficed for a criminal prosecution for disclosure of State secrets (see paragraph 46 above).
77. Secondly, as regards Mr Moiseyev's case, the latter was accused of offences that spanned the period from 1992 - 1993 to July 1998. The decision of the Supreme Court of 25 July 2000 in Mr Moiseyev's case, referred to by the applicant, stated that the first-instance court had failed to determine the precise timing of the commission of the offences, and that it was therefore unclear which of those offences had been committed during the period when the State Secrets Act had complied with the requirements of Article 29 § 4 of the Russian Constitution. As in Mr Nikitin's case, the Supreme Court did not say anything concerning the Presidential Decree of 30 November 1995 (see paragraph 47 above). The Court is not therefore convinced that the court decisions relied on by the applicant are directly relevant in his situation, or that they should be interpreted in the way suggested by him, particularly as those indicating that the State Secrets Act in its original version and the Presidential Decree of 30 November 1995 had not constituted a sufficient legal basis for his conviction.
78. Lastly, the Court notes that the domestic courts in the applicant's case consistently referred to the State Secrets Act and the Presidential Decree of 30 November 1995 as the basis for the applicant's conviction. It reiterates in this connection that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law and that the Court will not express its opinion contrary to theirs unless their interpretation appear arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court sees no reasons to depart from the interpretation given by the domestic courts. It therefore consid

> 1 2 3 ... 36 37 38 39 ... 40