g that the measure complained of pursued a legitimate aim, namely protection of the interests of national security.
3. Whether the interference was necessary
in a democratic society
85. As regards the proportionality of the interference at issue, the Court notes first of all that the applicant's argument that his intent to transfer the impugned information was not proven and that the said information could be found in public sources appear unconvincing. The domestic courts carefully scrutinised each of the applicant's arguments and corroborated their findings with several items of evidence. They relied, in particular, on several recordings of the applicant's telephone conversations with a Japanese national, proving his intention to transfer the information in question to Mr T.O. (see paragraphs 22 and 32 above). The domestic courts also gave due consideration to, and rejected as unreliable, the applicant's argument that the information collected by him was publicly accessible. Indeed, they critically assessed the expert report of 14 September 2001, having compared the experts' conclusions with other materials of the case, and rejected those conclusions which listed as classified information that could be found in public sources, such as a military reference book on submarines or a Greenpeace report (see paragraph 26 above). In respect of the information collected by the applicant, they noted, however, that it was not openly published (see paragraph 32 above).
86. The Court further cannot but accept the arguments of the domestic courts and the Government that, as a serving military officer, the applicant was bound by an obligation of discretion in relation to anything concerning the performance of his duties (see Hadjianastassiou, cited above, § 46). The Court also considers that the disclosure of the information concerning military exercises which the applicant had collected and kept was capable of causing considerable damage to national security. It is true that the applicant did not in fact transfer the information in question to a foreign national; on the other hand, the Court does not overlook the fact that his sentence was very lenient, much lower than the statutory minimum, and notably four years' imprisonment as compared with twelve to twenty years' imprisonment and confiscation of property (see paragraphs 28 and 37 above).
87. Overall, the Court observes that the applicant was convicted as a serving military officer, and not as a journalist, of treason through espionage for having collected and kept, with the intention of transferring it to a foreign national, information of a military nature that was classified as a State secret. The materials in the Court's possession reveal that the domestic courts carefully examined the circumstances of the applicant's case, addressed the parties' arguments and based their findings on various items of evidence. Their decisions appear reasoned and well-founded. On balance, the Court considers that the domestic courts cannot be said to have overstepped the limits of the margin of appreciation which is to be left to the domestic authorities in matters of national security (see Hadjianastassiou, cited above, § 47). Nor does the evidence disclose the lack of a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the legitimate aim pursued. There is nothing in the materials of the case to support the applicant's allegation that his conviction was overly broad or politically motivated or that he had been sanctioned for any of his publications.
88. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in the present case.
89. The Court further notes that the applicant's complaints under Article 7 of the Convention concern the same facts as those examined under Ar
> 1 2 3 ... 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
