an offence punishable under Article 275 of the Russian Criminal Code included not only the transfer itself but also the collection, theft or storage with the intention to transfer of information constituting State secrets and that the applicant's intention to transfer the imputed information to Mr T.O. had been proven by evidence examined by the trial court, namely by the recordings of the applicant's telephone conversations with Mr T.O.
62. The Government further contested the applicant's allegation that the information contained in his handwritten notes had been available from public sources. They submitted that these arguments had been thoroughly examined by the domestic courts and rejected as unfounded. The Government pointed out that the materials of the criminal case against the applicant had contained several publications, including that of the applicant, which had reported on the results of the tactical training exercises but did not disclose any classified information, in particular any information concerning the actual names of military units, or the means and methods of radio electronic warfare. Having compared those publications and the applicant's handwritten notes, the courts rightly concluded that the information in the applicant's handwritten notes had not been accessible from public sources.
63. Lastly, the Government disputed the applicant's assertion that by collecting the impugned information, he had carried out his usual journalistic activity. In this connection they referred to the recordings of the applicant's telephone conversations with Mr T.O., which clearly showed that the latter had expressed an interest only in information of a classified nature.
B. The Court's assessment
64. The Court observes that the applicant was convicted of having collected on 11 September 1997 and kept until 20 November 1997, the date on which he was arrested, information containing State secrets. The applicant complained, in essence, that his conviction had been unlawful, since in so far as the period between 11 September 1997 and 8 October 1997 was concerned, there had been no statutory list of information constituting State secrets, whilst with regard to the period from 9 October 1997, the date on which an amendment incorporating such a list into domestic law had become effective, until 20 November 1997, the domestic courts had extensively interpreted the applicable domestic law and based his conviction on an unpublished ministerial decree. The applicant argued that he had therefore been unable to foresee criminal responsibility for his conduct during either of these periods.
65. Having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the crux of it is the alleged violation of the applicant's right to freedom of expression. It is therefore considers it appropriate to examine the applicant's complaints under Article 10 of the Convention.
66. Bearing in mind that the applicant was a serving officer, the Court reiterates that the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention applies to servicemen just as it does to other persons within the jurisdiction of Contracting States. Also, the information disclosure of which was imputed to the applicant does not fall outside the scope of Article 10, which is not restricted to certain categories of information, ideas or forms of expression (see Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, § 39, Series A No. 252). The Court is therefore satisfied that Article 10 of the Convention is applicable in the present case and that the sentence imposed on the applicant constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression. Such interference infringes Article 10 unless it was "prescribed by law", pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in paragraph 2 of Article 10 and was "necessary in a democratic
> 1 2 3 ... 33 34 35 ... 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
