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

a report by a forensic expert, the handwritten text in those notes was made by [the applicant], which the latter has not denied in court."
22. The court based its findings on statements by a number of witnesses, five recordings of the applicant's telephone conversations with Mr T.O. made by the FSB in June - September 1997, and the expert report of 14 September 2001, insofar as it stated that the applicant's handwritten notes contained information classified as secret. In particular, the court noted with regard to the expert report of 14 September 2001:
"... The experts concluded that [the applicant's] notes contained, in summary fashion, information on the composition of the groups of the naval forces which had taken part in the exercises, [such information] disclosing the actual names of highly critical and secured military formations and units, including military intelligence units, which constituted a State secret under section 5, paragraph 1 (6) of the State Secrets Act of the Russian Federation (No. 5485-1) of 21 July 1993, as amended by Federal Law No. 131-FZ of 6 October 1997 and paragraph 13 of the List of Information constituting State Secrets, approved by Decree No. 1203 of the President of the Russian Federation of 30 November 1995.
Also, the experts concluded that [the applicant's handwritten notes] in summary fashion... disclosed information on the activities of radio electronic warfare units, and notably on means and methods of protection of classified data, which constituted a State secret under section 5, paragraph 4 (5) of the State Secrets Act of the Russian Federation, No. 5485-1 of 21 July 1993, as amended by Federal Law No. 131-FZ of 6 October 1997 and paragraph 77 of the List of Information classified as State Secrets, approved by Decree No. 1203 of the President of the Russian Federation of 30 November 1995.
...
... The court finds that [the experts'] conclusions that [the applicant's] notes on the exercises contain information disclosing the actual names of highly critical and secured military formations and units of the Pacific Fleet, including military intelligence units and [information on] specific activities of radio electronic warfare units... which constitutes State secrets, are consistent, well-reasoned and based on a correct application of the legislation..."
23. The applicant confirmed that he had attended the meeting of 11 September 1997 and made summary notes of speeches and reports of its participants, but pleaded not guilty and argued that he had lawfully attended the said meeting, since he had the right to receive and impart information as a journalist. The applicant insisted that he had had no intention of transferring this information to Mr T.O. and had kept it in order to enrich his own knowledge on the latest developments in the Navy and to inform his subordinates thereof, and to report on the results of the military exercises in the Boyevaya Vakhta newspaper. The applicant stated that all his activities had fully complied with Russian legislation.
24. As regards the applicant's argument that he had the right to freedom of expression, and was therefore entitled to attend the meeting of 11 September 1997, the court noted that the right to information was not absolute and could be limited by law for the protection of national security. Under national law, military personnel's right to information was limited in the interests of military service and, in particular, such personnel had an obligation not to disclose state or military secrets. As a serving officer, the applicant was bound by the legal provisions regulating the way in which servicemen accessed, collected, kept, imparted and published information classified as secret, and the way they communicated with foreign nationals.
25. The court also rejected the applicant's argument that he had made the impugned



> 1 2 3 ... 23 24 25 ... 38 39 40

	Поделиться:	Tweet