EIT: Identiteettivarkaus muodosti 8 artiklan loukkauksen

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on tuoreessa tuomiossaan katsonut, että sen jälkeen, kun valittaja oli ilmoittanut ajokorttinsa varastetuksi, olisi viranomaisten aktiivisemmin tullut pyrkiä suojaamaan valittajaa ajokortin väärinkäytöltä. Valittajan nimiin oli mm. rekisteröity 1.737 ajoneuvoa, joiden vuoksi hän joutui useisiin oikeudenkäynteihin ja häneltä vaadittiin maksamattomia ajoneuvoveroja ym.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

On 3 November 1995 he reported to the police that his driving license had been stolen in September of that year. In March 1997, the authorities issued him with a new driving licence, shortly after he applied for it.

During the intervening period the relevant authorities registered 1,737 motor vehicles in his name, without receiving his agreement beforehand. As a consequence, he was prosecuted on many occasions for various offences and accidents related to the cars and required to pay vehicle tax on them. He was also fined and detained for failure to comply with administrative orders which were the result of offences not committed by him. He lost his welfare benefits too, as the authorities found that his financial means were ample given the large number of cars registered in his name.

In the course of 1996, Mr Romet turned to various authorities asking them to rectify the situation, to no avail. In 2004, he also appealed to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal seeking the prosecution of those responsible for the malicious vehicle registrations in his name. His appeal was dismissed, the Court finding that too much time had passed for a meaningful investigation to be possible.

Mr Romet challenged the registrations of the motor vehicles in his name, asking the Government Road Transport Agency to annul them retrospectively, but was met with a refusal.

The Court observed that the failure to invalidate Mr Romet’s driving license as soon as he reported it missing, which made abuse of his identity by other people possible, was an “interference” with his private life which fell within the scope of Article 8.

Mr Romet had reported his driving license stolen on 3 November 1995. Yet, the authorities had invalidated it only in March 1997 when they had issued him with a replacement. After that date, apparently, no further vehicles had been unlawfully registered in his name. Consequently, the authorities had not acted swiftly to deprive the driving license of its usefulness as an identity document. Neither had they satisfied the Court that they could not have done so immediately after Mr Romet had reported his driving license missing.

Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 8.

Koko lehdistötiedote, missä myös linkki koko tuomioon: Romet v. Netherlands

Palaa otsikoihin