{"id":4322,"date":"2021-05-25T13:28:31","date_gmt":"2021-05-25T13:28:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.chirita-law.com\/?p=4322"},"modified":"2025-12-29T09:47:33","modified_gmt":"2025-12-29T07:47:33","slug":"marea-camera-a-curtii-europene-a-drepturilor-omului-constata-incalcarea-conventiei-de-catre-regatul-unit-si-suedia-prin-legile-privind-interceptarea-in-masa-a-comunicatiilor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/marea-camera-a-curtii-europene-a-drepturilor-omului-constata-incalcarea-conventiei-de-catre-regatul-unit-si-suedia-prin-legile-privind-interceptarea-in-masa-a-comunicatiilor\/","title":{"rendered":"Marea Camer\u0103 a Cur\u0163ii Europene a Drepturilor Omului constat\u0103 \u00eenc\u0103lcarea Conven\u0163iei de c\u0103tre Regatul Unit \u015fi Suedia prin legile privind interceptarea \u00een mas\u0103 a comunica\u0163iilor"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"457\" height=\"238\" src=\"https:\/\/www.chirita-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/bigbrother1.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4323\" srcset=\"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/bigbrother1.png 457w, https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/bigbrother1-300x156.png 300w, https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/bigbrother1-18x9.png 18w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 457px) 100vw, 457px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Prin cele dou\u0103 hot\u0103r\u00e2ri pronun\u0163ate azi de Marea Camer\u0103 \u00een cauzele Centrum f\u00f6r r\u00e4ttvisa c. Suediei (pl\u00e2ngerea nr. 35252\/08) \u015fi Big Brother Watch \u015fi al\u0163ii c. Regatului Unit (pl\u00e2ngerile nr. 58170\/13, 62322\/14 \u015fi 24969\/15), Curtea s-a pronun\u0163at cu privire la compatibilitatea legisla\u0163iilor na\u0163ionale privind supravegherea \u00een mas\u0103 cu prevederile Conven\u0163iei.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u00cen cauza<strong> Centrum f\u00f6r r\u00e4ttvisa c. Suediei<\/strong> (pl\u00e2ngerea nr. 35252\/08), pl\u00e2ngerea a fost formulat\u0103 de o funda\u0163ie care a invocat riscul ca toate comunic\u0103rile funda\u021biei solicitante s\u0103 fi fost sau s\u0103 fie interceptate \u0219i examinate prin intermediul informa\u021biilor de semnal, \u00eentruc\u00e2t comunica zilnic cu persoane fizice, organiza\u021bii \u0219i companii din Suedia \u0219i din str\u0103in\u0103tate prin e-mail, telefon \u0219i fax, adesea \u00een probleme sensibile privind reprezentarea lor \u00een proceduri \u00eempotriva statului. Pl\u00e2ngerea viza legisla\u0163ia na\u0163ional\u0103 privind interceptarea semnalelor cu informa\u0163ii care permitea interceptarea, prelucrarea, analizarea \u0219i raportarea informa\u021biilor din semnale electronice, inclusiv text, imagini \u0219i sunet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Curtea a constatat c\u0103, de\u0219i principalele caracteristici ale regimului suedez de interceptare \u00een mas\u0103 \u00eendeplineau cerin\u021bele Conven\u021biei privind calitatea legii, regimul a suferit totu\u0219i de trei deficien\u0163e: absen\u021ba unei reguli clare privind distrugerea materialului interceptat care nu con\u021binea date cu caracter personal, absen\u0163a unei unei verific\u0103ri <em>ex post facto<\/em> eficiente \u015fi absen\u021ba unei condi\u0163ii de a avea \u00een vedere interesele de confiden\u021bialitate ale persoanelor vizate atunci c\u00e2nd se decidea transmiterea materialelor interceptate c\u0103tre parteneri str\u0103ini.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ca urmare a acestor deficien\u021be, Curtea a constatat c\u0103 sistemul nu con\u0163inea suficiente garan\u0163ii \u00eempotriva riscului arbitrariului \u0219i abuzului \u015fi c\u0103 a fost dep\u0103\u0219it\u0103 marja de apreciere l\u0103sat\u0103 statului \u00een \u200b\u200baceast\u0103 privin\u021b\u0103, duc\u00e2nd la o \u00eenc\u0103lcare a articolului 8 din Conven\u021bie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cauza<strong> Big Brother Watch \u015fi al\u0163ii c. Regatului Unit<\/strong> a vizat pl\u00e2ngeri ale unor jurnali\u0219ti \u0219i ale organiza\u021bii pentru drepturile omului \u00een leg\u0103tur\u0103 cu trei regimuri de supraveghere diferite prev\u0103zute de Legea privind reglementarea puterilor de investiga\u0163ie adoptat\u0103 \u00een anul 2000: interceptarea \u00een mas\u0103 a comunica\u021biilor, primirea de materiale interceptate de la guverne \u0219i agen\u021bii de informa\u021bii str\u0103ine \u015fi ob\u021binerea de date privind comunic\u0103rile de la furnizorii de servicii de comunica\u021bii.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u00cen ce prive\u015fte interceptarea \u00een mas\u0103 a comunica\u0163iilor, Curtea a considerat c\u0103, datorit\u0103 multitudinii de amenin\u021b\u0103ri cu care se confrunt\u0103 statele \u00een societatea modern\u0103, operarea unui regim de interceptare \u00een mas\u0103 nu a \u00eenc\u0103lcat \u00een sine Conven\u021bia. Cu toate acestea, s-a re\u0163inut c\u0103 un astfel de regim trebuie s\u0103 fie supus unor garan\u0163ii \u201eend to end\u201d, Curtea elabor\u00e2nd un set de criterii cheie care trebuie definite clar \u00een dreptul intern \u00eenainte ca un astfel de regim s\u0103 poat\u0103 fi considerat conform cu standardele Conven\u021biei. Astfel, s-a statuat c\u0103 este necesar ca, la nivel intern, s\u0103 se realizeze \u00een fiecare etap\u0103 a procesului o evaluare a necesit\u0103\u0163ii \u015fi propor\u0163ionalit\u0103\u0163ii m\u0103surii, c\u0103 interceptarea \u00een bloc ar trebui s\u0103 fac\u0103 obiectul unei autoriza\u021bii independente \u00eenc\u0103 de la \u00eenceput, c\u00e2nd se define\u015fte obiectul \u0219i sfera opera\u021biunii, \u0219i c\u0103 opera\u021biunea ar trebui s\u0103 fie supus\u0103 unei supravegheri \u0219i verific\u0103ri independente <em>ex post facto<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Av\u00e2nd \u00een vedere regimul de interceptare \u00een bloc operat \u00een Regatul Unit, Curtea a identificat urm\u0103toarele deficien\u021be: autorizarea intercept\u0103rii \u00een bloc se realiza de secretarul de stat \u0219i nu de un organism independent de executiv, cererea de autorizare nu includea suficiente elemente privind termenii de c\u0103utare \u015fi tipurile de comunic\u0103ri care ar putea fi supuse verific\u0103rii, nu exista o autorizare intern\u0103 prealabil\u0103 atunci c\u00e2nd termenii de c\u0103utare erau lega\u021bi de o persoan\u0103.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u00cen considerarea acestor deficien\u0163e, Curtea a constatat c\u0103 regimul de interceptare \u00een mas\u0103 din Regatul Unit a \u00eenc\u0103lcat articolul 8 din Conven\u0163ie privind dreptul la via\u0163\u0103 privat\u0103 dar \u015fi articolul 10 privind libertatea de exprimare \u00eentruc\u00e2t nu con\u0163inea suficiente garan\u0163ii pentru protejarea materialului jurnalistic confiden\u021bial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">De asemenea, Curtea a constatat c\u0103 \u015fi regimul pentru ob\u021binerea datelor de comunica\u021bii de la furnizorii de servicii de comunica\u021bii a \u00eenc\u0103lcat articolele 8 \u0219i 10 deoarece nu a fost \u00een conformitate cu legea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cu toate acestea, Curtea a considerat c\u0103 regimul prin care Regatul Unit putea cere informa\u021bii de la guvernele sau agen\u021biile de informa\u021bii str\u0103ine au avut suficiente garan\u021bii \u00eempotriva abuzului care s\u0103 asigure c\u0103 autorit\u0103\u021bile britanice nu au folosit astfel de cereri ca mijloc de eludare atribu\u021biile lor \u00een temeiul dreptului intern \u0219i al Conven\u021biei.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Hot\u0103r\u00e2rile Marii Camere a CEDO privitoare la supravegherea \u00een mas\u0103 a persoanelor<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[83,11,84],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-reprezentare-in-fata-cedo","category-drept-penal","category-white-collar-infractiuni-economice"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4322","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4322\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}