A court case about how a minor formality in a criminal record check can become a serious violation of the right to privacy.
The world of legal practice often makes us wonder where the line is drawn between the right to Privacy and Criminal privacy and the interests of society. When I first read about the case of SVM v. Ukraine , I realized that I had to share stories like this. It’s not just about legal nuances. It’s about how the law can influence our perception of ourselves in society.
Help that reveals more than it’s worth
Let’s start with the context. The applicant, who had a previous c level executive list criminal record that had been expunged, applied for a certificate of no criminal record. In response, he received a document that not only confirmed the absence of a criminal record, but also contained a reference to Privacy and Criminal Article 89 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which describes in detail the process of “expunging” a criminal record. The wording in the certificate effectively revealed that the applicant had a previous conviction.
At first glance, it seems: “So what’s the big deal?” But it’s worth delving deeper. According to the European Convention on Human Rights, the disclosure of such data is the processing of sensitive personal data. And this is a prompt for personal information violation of the right to respect for private life (Article 8 of the Convention). In the case of “SVM v. Ukraine”, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) confirmed that the information in the certificate was redundant, and its wording did not meet any pressing public need.
The role of language and legal balance
Importantly, the mere fact that the applicant requested the certificate did not au emai list automatically mean consent to the disclosure of his past. The domestic courts in this case considered that the Ministry of Internal Affairs had not violated the law, as the certificate had been provided to the applicant personally. However, the ECtHR noted that the very content of the certificate affected the individual’s right to privacy, even if the document remained in their own hands.
