CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juillet 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 9 August 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 40106/15 S.V.M. against Ukraine lodged on 4 August 2015 communicated on 15 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns an allegedly unlawful and unnecessary disclosure of information concerning the applicant’s past criminal record ( судимість ) in a certificate issued to him by a police authority, at his request, for the purposes of presenting to his prospective employers. More specifically, the certificate indicated that the applicant was “ considered to be a person without criminal record ... in accordance with Article 89 of the Criminal Code ... ”. As the above legal provision stipulated terms of erasing criminal record ( погашення судимості ) of previously convicted persons, the applicant requested for the reference to it to be deleted and for the certificate to be reformulated on the ground that it contained an unjustified reference to his past conviction. The police authority rejected that request. The courts at three instances dismissed the applicant’s ensuing administrative complaint, in which he asserted that such a formulation of the certificate was neither lawful nor necessary and that it put him into an unfairly disadvantageous situation as compared to persons, who had never been convicted, in particular, at the job market.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   2.     Has there been a breach of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 or a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 in the present case?