Human rights: the European Court
01 November 1991
In March 1991 the Commission held admissible a complaint relating to non-access to security files by their subjects. The background to the case of V v Netherlands was a raid in November 1984 by an anti-militarist group, Onkruit, on the Utrecht offices of the 450 Counter-Intelligence Detachment of the Army Intelligence Service (450-CID). The raiders found the names of 178 civilians and 64 organisations "noted" on the planning board of the Infiltration Influencing Outline, as dangerous to the State. Fifteen of the civilians had a special red tag to indicate that they were considered "hazardous to military mobilisation". The files themselves were held elsewhere, and material seen by Onkruit suggested in addition that there was illegal collaboration between 450-CID and the civilian Intelligence Security Service (BVD), the Police Intelligence Service (PID) and possibly the Central Detective Intelligence Service (CRI). The information was published and some of the named individuals requested access to the information on them in the files of 450-CID and the BVD. Ministers in charge of both departments refused to acknowledge the existence of the files. Dutch law allowed disclosure of information by public bodies to be withheld on grounds of national security. The applicants claimed a violation of their right to respect for their private life, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and said that the observation and registration by the security services, and the subsequent refusal to disclose the files, could not be justified by national security. The Commission declared the complaint admissible on 4 March 1991.
The second case Niemitz v Germany, declared admissible on 5 April 1990, concerned a search of a lawyer's office under a search warrant to seize documents disclosing the identity of a criminal suspect, KW, and his whereabouts, after the lawyer had refused to disclose these. The suspect was connected with a company which used the lawyers' office as a forwarding address. The Commission held admissible a complaint under Article 8 that the search was a violation of the applicant's privacy.
Human Rights Law Journal, Vol 12 nos 5, 6-7, pp 219, 284.