Voorhoof, Dirk

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

IRIS 2010-1/1European Court of Human Rights: Case of Pasko v. RussiaThe European Court of Human Rights found no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in the highly controversialcase of Pasko v. Russia. The case concerns Grigoriy Pasko, a Russian national who at the time of the events was anaval officer and worked as a military journalist on the Russian Pacific Fleet’s Newspaper “Boyevaya Vakhta”. MrPasko had been reporting on problems of environmental pollution, accidents with nuclear submarines, transport ofmilitary nuclear waste and other issues related to the activities of the Russian Pacific Fleet. Mr Pasko had also beenin contact on a free-lance basis with a Japanese TV station and a newspaper and had supplied them with openlyavailable information and video footage. These contacts with Japanese journalists and a Japanese TV station andnewspaper were pursued by Mr Pasko of his own volition and were not reported to his superiors.In November 1997, Mr Pasko was searched at the Vladivostok airport before flying to Japan. A number of his paperswere confiscated with the explanation that they contained classified information. He was arrested upon his returnfrom Japan and charged with treason through espionage for having collected secret information with the intentionof transferring it to a foreign national. Mr Pasko was sentenced in December 2001 to four years’ imprisonment bythe Pacific Military Fleet Court, as he was found guilty of treason through espionage for having collected secretand classified information containing actual names of highly critical and secure military formations and units, withthe intention of transferring this information to a foreign national. He was released on parole in January 2003.Relying on Articles 7 (no punishment without law) and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, Mr Paskocomplained that the Russian authorities had applied criminal legislation retrospectively and had subjected him toan overly broad and politically motivated criminal persecution as a reprisal for his critical publications. The Courtconsidered that the essence of the case was the alleged violation of Article 10, since Mr Pasko’s complaints underArticle 7 concerned the same facts as those related to Article 10. The Court therefore decided to examine thecomplaints under Article 10 only.After having accepted that the Russian authorities acted on a proper legal basis, the Court observed that, asa serving military officer, the applicant had been bound by an obligation of discretion in relation to anythingconcerned with the performance of his duties. The domestic courts had carefully scrutinised each of his arguments.The courts had found that he had collected and kept, with the intention of transferring to a foreign national,information of a military nature that had been classified as a State secret and which had been capable of causingconsiderable damage to national security. Finally, the applicant had been convicted of treason through espionageas a serving military officer and not as a journalist. According to the European Court, there was nothing in thematerials of the case to support the applicant’s allegations that his conviction had been overly broad or politicallymotivated or that he had been sanctioned for any of his publications. The Court found that the domestic courtshad struck the right balance of proportionality between the aim of protecting national security and the meansused to achieve that purpose, namely the sentencing of the applicant to a “lenient sentence”, much less severethan the minimum stipulated in law. Accordingly, the Court held by six votes to one that there had not been aviolation of Article 10.• Judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (First Section), case of Pasko v. Russia, Application. no. 69519/01 of 22 October 2009http://merlin.obs.coe.int/redirect.php?id=12167ENDirk VoorhoofGhent University (Belgium) & Copenhagen University (Denmark) & Member of the Flemish Regulator for theMediaThe objective of IRIS is to publish information on legal and law-related policy developments that are relevant to theEuropean audiovisual sector. Despite our efforts to ensure the accuracy of the content, the ultimate responsibilityfor the truthfulness of the facts on which we report is with the authors of the articles. Any opinions expressedin the articles are personal and should in no way be interpreted as representing the views of any organisationsrepresented in its editorial board.IRIS 1© European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg (France)IRIS 2

European court of human rights: case of Pasko v. Russia

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/877360/file/6826444.pdf

European court of human rights: case of Pasko v. Russia

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography