The applicant Mr.Gardel was in prison as in 2003 he was sentenced for a rape of minors. In 2004 a law was issued which created an automated national judicial database of sex offenders. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning this database entered into force in June 2005. In November 2005 the applicant was informed that he had been included in the database on account of his convictions. This measure required Mr.Gardel to provide information on his address and inform the authorities of any change.
Mr.Gardel complained of his placement on the Sex Offenders Register, as there was no such register when he was convicted, and it limited his right to private life.
The Court ruled that the storage of Mr.Gardel’s data in the Register did not violate his right to private life, as the interference was prescribed by law, aimed at the prevention of disorder and crime, and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
The Court found that:
Data stored in the Sex Offenders Register was not excessive or irrelevant.
As there was a time limit on keeping the applicant’s data in the Register, the data would not be kept longer than necessary.
Retained personal data was efficiently protected from misuse and abuse, as only a limited list of persons had an access to the Register.
The applicant could initiate proceedings reviewing the necessity of his data storage in the Register.