CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 février 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 149 February 2012 Romet v. the Netherlands - 7094/06 Judgment 14.2.2012 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Theft of applicant’s identity due to authorities’ failure to invalidate his stolen driving licence: violation   Facts – In November 1995 the applicant reported to the police that his driving licence had been stolen. In March 1997 he applied for a new licence and was issued one. However, in the meantime 1,737 motor vehicles had been registered in his name in the vehicle registration system. As a consequence, the applicant received a large number of motor-vehicle tax assessments and was on many occasions prosecuted and fined in respect of offences committed with those vehicles. He was also detained for failing to pay the fines and his welfare benefits were stopped since his financial means were considered to be adequate on account of the number of vehicles registered in his name. Following a request by the applicant in 2004 the authorities annulled the registrations, but without retroactive effect as they deemed it impossible for reasons of legal certainty. The applicant’s subsequent appeals to the domestic courts were dismissed. Law – Article 8: The failure to invalidate the applicant’s driving licence, which had enabled others to abuse his identity, constituted an interference with his right to respect for his private life. Relying on EU Directive 95/46/EC *, the applicant claimed that the interference with his private life had been unlawful. However, noting that, for the purposes of the Convention, an EU Directive bound the domestic authorities only in the form in which it was transposed into domestic law, the Court found that the interference was in accordance with law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others. As to whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society, the applicant had reported his driving licence stolen in November 1995 and from that moment onward the authorities must have been aware that the licence was no longer in his possession and could have taken swift administrative action to deprive it of its usefulness as an identity document. However, the licence was invalidated only in March 1997, when the applicant obtained a new one. The Government had not explained why such action could not have been taken immediately after the applicant reported it stolen. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed. * Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes