055.
52. The applicant thus argued that, in any event, he could not have foreseen that the information which he had collected at the meeting of 11 September 1997 could have been of a classified nature, as none of the participants at the said meeting had informed the others about the secret nature of the information which had been distributed at the meeting. He also insisted that the information which he had collected and kept at home was of minor importance.
53. The applicant further maintained his complaint under Article 10 of the Convention. He insisted that the authorities had persecuted him for his journalistic activity and his publication of articles on serious environmental issues. He also contended that the impugned information could have been found in public sources, and in particular in reports by various environmental organisations, that it was of minor importance and that it could not therefore be regarded as a State secret.
2. The Government
54. The Government argued that in the applicant's case the domestic courts had not applied the domestic law retrospectively, nor had they construed it extensively.
55. They submitted that the courts' assessment of the applicant's actions and, consequently, his conviction had been based on Article 275 of the Russian Criminal Code, the State Secrets Act as amended on 6 October 1997 and Decree No. 1203 of the Russian President of 30 November 1995, which approved the List of Information classified as State Secrets. They referred to the decision of 25 June 2002 in which the appellate court confirmed that the trial court had lawfully applied the said legal instruments in the applicant's case, given that the offence imputed to the applicant had been of a continuous nature, had commenced on 11 September 1997, when the applicant collected the imputed notes, and had been halted on 20 November 1997, when the notes had been seized from the applicant. According to the Government, in a situation where there was a criminal offence of a continuing nature, it was legislation in force at the moment when such an offence was halted that was applicable. The Government contended that the applicant could not but have foreseen the application of the above-mentioned legal instruments, as all of them had been duly published and had therefore been accessible to him.
56. The Government disputed the applicant's argument that at the time when he had committed the offences imputed to him the information classified as secret had not been defined by law. In the Government's submission, the decision of the Constitutional Court of Russia dated 20 December 1995 had established that the requirements of Article 29 § 4 of the Constitution of Russia had been fulfilled by enactment of the State Secrets Act of 21 July 1993, which had defined the notion of State secrets and listed the information classifiable as State secrets. They also submitted that, subsequently, Presidential Decree No. 1203 of 30 November 1995 had enacted the list of information classified as State secrets. The Government pointed out that, in any event, the amendment of 6 October 1997 had not changed the provisions of section 5 of the State Secrets Act which had formed the basis for the applicant's conviction.
57. In so far as the applicant complained that the domestic courts had relied on a secret Decree No. 055 of the Ministry of Defence, which had allegedly lead to an extensive interpretation and overly broad application of the State Secrets Act, the Government contended that the said decree only defined the degree of secrecy of information classified as State secrets under federal law and had not prescribed any rules of conduct for individuals, but had been intended only for establishing the manner and criteria for defining the degree of secrecy of information classified as State secrets, and therefore had not pertained
> 1 2 3 ... 31 32 33 ... 38 39 40
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
