CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 9 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8D1B5452 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#0000ff } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s289A4F99 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s1ED9948 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } 197 09.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar Decision     Dalea v. France (application no. 964/07)   Unanimously: application inadmissible   REFUSAL OF ENTRY TO Schengen AREA ON NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS DID NOT BREACH APPLICANT’s right to respect for private life     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Gheorghe Dalea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1928 and lives in Bucharest (Romania).   As the manager of a Romanian company whose business was the import and export of pharmaceuticals, he travelled regularly between 1971 and 1982, especially to France where his company had a joint venture with a French company.   In 1997 the German Embassy in Romania denied his application for a visa, which he needed for a professional and personal visit to Germany, on the ground that he had been reported by the French authorities to the Schengen Information System for the purposes of being refused entry. His inclusion in the database was confirmed the following year by the French Consulate in Romania, which, on the same grounds, denied him a visa for France, where he was to undergo heart surgery (the operation ultimately took place in Switzerland).   In 2003 the French National Data Protection Commission (the “CNIL”), in response to a request from the applicant as advised by the French Embassy in Romania, indicated that it had carried out the requested checks and that the procedure before it was now exhausted.   Mr Dalea applied to the Conseil d’État for judicial review of the decision. In his defence the President of the CNIL explained that the data at issue concerning the applicant had public safety and security implications and could not be disclosed without the consent of the Ministry of the Interior. The Conseil d’État found that the action for judicial review of the CNIL’s decision was without object, as Mr Dalea had received information concerning his data entry through the Commission’s written procedure. The Conseil d’État further ordered the CNIL to provide him with any relevant information as to why he had been reported to the Schengen system, and stating in particular the nature of the documents withheld and the reason for non-disclosure.   In 2005 the CNIL indicated that the French Security Intelligence Agency (the “DST”) alone could provide the relevant information, as Mr Dalea had been reported as a wanted person by that Agency.   In a judgment of 23 August 2006 the Conseil d’État observed that the applicant had been the subject of a report to the Schengen Information System, valid until 5 January 2006, under the Schengen Agreement Application Convention, and found that the CNIL’s decision to the effect that there was no need to rectify or delete Mr Dalea’s data in the system had been justified.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained about the decision to deny him entry to France (between 20   December   1989 and 7 September 2008), and about his inability before the CNIL and the Conseil d’État to find out why he had been reported to the Schengen Information System. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) he complained that this report had barred him from any personal or professional visits to countries in the Schengen area between 2   November 1994 and 5   January 2006.   The application was lodged on 21 December 2006. The decision on admissibility was given on 2 February 2010 by a Chamber composed of seven judges:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Jean-Paul Costa (France), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia),   Judges,   and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,     Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   The Court reiterated that decisions regarding the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens did not fall within the scope of Article 6 § 1 as they did not concern “civil rights or obligations” or “a criminal charge”.   By lodging his applications with the CNIL and the Conseil d’État , Mr Dalea’s aim was ultimately to enter the Schengen area and travel within it, particularly in France and Germany. Accordingly, since the proceedings in question were closely connected to a subject-matter falling outside the scope of Article 6, the Court found that this part of the application had to be rejected.   Article 8   The Court reiterated that the Convention did not as such guarantee the right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country.   The interference with Mr Dalea’s “private life” – in terms of his relations with French and German companies and with figures from political and economic circles – as a result of his inclusion in the Schengen Information System had been “in accordance with the law” and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting national security. The Court noted that the applicant had not shown how he had actually suffered as a result of his inability to travel in the Schengen area and pointed out that he had in the end gone to Switzerland for his heart surgery. The French authorities’ interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life had not therefore been disproportionate to the aim pursued.   Whilst the Court noted the impact for Mr Dalea of his inclusion in the Schengen Information System, barring him access to all countries that applied the Schengen Agreement, it found that States had broad discretion in taking measures to secure the protection against arbitrariness that an individual in such a situation could expect.   Further, Mr Dalea had been able to apply for review of the measure at issue, at last instance to the Conseil d’État , which referred the matter back to the CNIL for clarification and verification. Whilst the applicant had not been in a position to challenge the precise grounds for his inclusion in the Schengen database, he had been granted access to all the other data concerning him and had been informed that considerations relating to State security, defence and public safety had given rise to the report by the DST. The Court concluded that the applicant’s inability to gain personal access to all the information he had requested could not in itself prove that the interference was unjustified, in view of the national security interests. This part of the application was therefore rejected as ill-founded.   ****   The decision is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The decision is accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.