Pusiausvyra tarp žmogaus teisių ir valstybės nacionalinio saugumo interesų apsaugos: į kurią pusę krypsta teisminės svarstyklės?
| Date Issued |
|---|
2023 |
Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas (toliau – EŽTT arba Strasbūro Teismas) 2023 m. birželio 13 d. sprendime byloje UAB „Braitin“ prieš Lietuvą, kurioje pareiškėja bendrovė skundėsi dėl teisingo teismo garantijų ir teisės į reputaciją neužtikrinimo, nenustatė Europos žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijos (toliau – Konvencija arba EŽTK) 6 (teisė į teisingą bylos nagrinėjimą) ir 8 (teisė į privataus ir šeimos gyvenimo gerbimą) straipsnių pažeidimų. Pareiškėjos skundai pagal Konvencijos 8 straipsnį dėl reputacijos pažeidimo buvo atmesti kaip aiškiai nepagrįsti. EŽTT taip pat nenustatė Konvencijos 6 straipsnio 1 dalies pažeidimo ir kitoje byloje – UAB „Ambercore DC“ ir UAB „Arcus Novus“ prieš Lietuvą, kurioje, be kita ko, dviejų pareiškėjų bendrovių skundai buvo atmesti kaip aiškiai nepagrįsti pagal Konvencijos Pirmojo Protokolo 1 straipsnį (nuosavybės apsauga) 2023 m. birželio 13 dieną EŽTT priimtame sprendime dėl bylos esmės. Neprieštaravimą Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucijai 2021 m. kovo 4 d. nutarime konstatavo ir Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas (toliau – Konstitucinis Teismas) spręsdamas klausimą, ar asmens baudžiamasis persekiojimas gali būti laikomas pagrįstu pagrindu pagal Konstituciją pripažinti asmenį neatitinkančiu nacionalinio saugumo interesų. Taigi, šie Strasbūro Teismo ir Konstitucinio Teismo sprendimai rodo, kad teisminės svarstyklės šiais konkrečiais minėtų ginčų atvejais nukrypo į valstybėms teikiamą pirmenybę ginti valstybės nacionalinio saugumo interesus ir galimybę šalinti iš svarbių valstybei sandorių įmones, kurios gali kelti grėsmę Lietuvos valstybės (ar kitos valstybės) nacionaliniam saugumui dėl jų turimų ryšių su nedraugiškų užsienio valstybių tam tikrais asmenimis, taip pat su tų valstybių žvalgybų ar saugumo tarnybų struktūromis, o tai kėlė susirūpinimą dėl to, kad dėl tokių ryšių gali būti rizikuojama sudaryti palankesnes sąlygas Rusijos žvalgybos veiklai Lietuvoje ir kibernetiniam šnipinėjimui.
The legal analysis of a number of cases in the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – the ECtHR) – UAB Braitin v. Lithuania and UAB Ambercore DC and UAB Arcus Novus v. Lithuania – indicates that the priority in balancing between the individual’s right to fair proceedings and the national security interests of the State in these concrete cases was given to the protection of national security interests. Such a position of the ECtHR, in the opinion of the author, logically stems from the Grand Chamber case of Regner v. the Czech Republic,13 where the ECtHR decided that there was no violation of Article 6 (1) of the Convention. In Regner v. the Czech Republic, the National Security Authority decided to revoke the security clearance that had been issued to the applicant, enabling him to hold the post of deputy to the first Vice-Minister of Defence, on the grounds that he posed a risk to national security. The decision did not, however, indicate which confidential information it was based on, as this was classified as “restricted” and could not therefore legally be disclosed to the applicant. This confidential information was also not disclosed to the applicant during the administrative judicial proceedings. The ECtHR has reiterated in its case law that the adversarial principle and the principle of equality of arms, which are closely linked, are fundamental components of the concept of a “fair hearing” within the meaning of Article 6 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights (hereinafter – the Convention). They require a “fair balance” between the parties: each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present its case under conditions that do not place it at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis its opponent or opponents. However, the rights deriving from these principles are not absolute. The ECtHR has already ruled, in a number of judgments, on the specific scenario in which precedence is given to superior national interests when denying a party fully adversarial proceedings (Miryana Petrova v. Bulgaria, no. 57148/08, judgment of 21 July 2016, paras. 39–40, and Ternovskis v. Latvia, no. 33637/02, judgment of 29 April 2014, paras. 65–68). The ECtHR has also clearly recognized that the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in this area. t is also important to stress that the ECtHR has held that it is not for the Court to take the place of the States Parties to the Convention in defining their national interests, a sphere which tra- ditionally forms part of the inner core of State sovereignty. Thus it is up to national authorities, and, primarily, national courts, to take into consideration the substantive content of the secret document in each case when weighing up the interests at stake. Moreover, the ECtHR has also held that the entitlement to the disclosure of relevant eviden- ce is not an absolute right. There may be competing interests, such as national security or keeping secret the methods that police used in the investigation of crime, which must be weighed against the rights of the party to the proceedings. However, only measures restricting the rights of a party to the proceedings which do not affect the very essence of those rights are permissible under Article 6 (1). For that to be the case, any difficulties caused to the applicant party by a limitation of its rights must be sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the judicial authorities (see, mutatis mu- tandis, Fitt v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29777/96, para. 45, , and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, para. 107). In both above-mentioned Lithuanian cases, the ECtHR found no violation of Article 6 (1) of the Convention as regards the reliance of the Lithuanian authorities, including the Lithuanian admi- nistrative courts, on the secret (classified) information provided by the State Security Department as regards the established fact that the applicants, all three companies, were posing a risk to the national security of the State of Lithuania. In the case of UAB Braitin v. Lithuania, the ECtHR concluded that the Lithuanian administrative courts duly exercised the powers of scrutiny available to them in these types of proceedings (involving the secret (classified) information used as evidence in the case), both regarding the need to preserve the confidentiality of classified documents and regarding the assess- ment of the reasonableness and lawfulness the protocol decision of the Coordinating Commission for the Protection of Objects Important for National Security (hereinafter – the Commission) (according to which the applicant was recognized as posing a threat to the national security of Lithuania with no possibility to invest), giving reasons for their decisions with regard to the specific circumstances of the present case. The Court thus considered that the restrictions curtailing the applicant company’s enjoyment of the rights afforded to it in accordance with the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms were offset in such a manner that the fair balance between the parties was not affected to such an extent as to impair the very essence of the applicant company’s right to a fair hearing. A similar position of the ECtHR was taken in the analogous case of UAB Ambercore DC and UAB Arcus Novus v. Lithuania, where no violation of Article 6 (1) of the Convention was found. In this case, the ECtHR has paid attention to the fact that, according to the official constitutional doctrine, Lithuania’s geopolitical orientation means Lithuania’s membership in the European Union and NATO. Therefore, the recent jurisprudence of the ECtHR indicates that the national security in- terests of the State can outweigh the restrictions imposed on the individual’s right to a fair trial. State security interests can be regarded as having priority in these cases over the right to a fair trial. Moreover, some counterbalancing factors were found by the domestic administrative courts and by the ECtHR in order to compensate difficulties imposed on the right to defence and on the right to a fair trial at the national level to the applicants’ companies, which claimed to have no access to the secret (classified) information on which the Commission’s protocol decision (eliminating them from investment activities in the strategic objects of Lithuania) and the decisions of the administrative courts were based. To conclude, it is clear from the case law of the ECtHR that the national interests of the State are still regarded by the ECtHR as a sphere which traditionally forms part of the inner core of State sovereignty.