search  
print

Human rights in Ukraine 2011. VI. THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

   

[1]

In Ukraine, the right to privacy is guaranteed by Article 32 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which provides that: “No one shall be subject to interference in his or her personal and family life, except in cases envisaged by the Constitution of Ukraine.” some aspects of privacy are also additionally protected at the constitutional level. Thus, the protection of the inviolability of housing is guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution, privacy of correspondence, telephone conversations, telegraph and other correspondence (communication privacy) is guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution, prohibition of collection, storage, use and dissemination of confidential information about an individual without her/his consent (information privacy) is guaranteed by Article 32 of the Constitution, prohibition to subject a person without her/his free consent to medical, scientific or other experiments (protecting certain elements of physical privacy) is guaranteed by Article 28 of the Constitution.

Interference with privacy is possible only if it falls within the exhaustive list of legitimate reasons and conditions for such intervention. The normative regulation of privacy is in the making now; as a result, the law enforcement procedure is characterized by inconsistencies and contradictions and largely does not ensure respect for the right to privacy.

There still remains a pending question[2] of regulation by law of obtaining court permission to take measures to temporarily restrict human rights and use of the received data. So far, this procedure, contrary to Article 31 of the Constitution of Ukraine concerning the necessity to provide for restrictions on the rights and freedoms by law, is regulated by by-law[3].

The legal guarantees in channels-of-communication data pickup and mail interception are clearly insufficient, and the legislation of Ukraine does not define unambiguously the limits and conditions of the authorities’ discretion in this area.

So far, there is no adequate protection against undue interference by public authority with the right to respect private life and correspondence. Moreover, the legislation still contains no clear instructions for persons liable to such measures and circumstances in which they can be used, as well as due scheduling of such actions. The legislation also bears no requirement for an interim review of the interference with the right to respect private life and correspondence within reasonable time periods, or any terms for such interference; it also contains no provisions for judiciary supervision of the activities of law enforcement agencies in case of their interference with private life. In turn, the fact that the public authorities do not have to notify a person about the surveillance activities against her/him narrow the opportunities to challenge the lawfulness of government’s interference with the right to privacy[4].

Listing a phone number as one belonging to a criminal offender in order to get a court order for tapping is one of the schemes, which, according to media reports though denied by the Security Service, the SSU uses against journalists, public figures and representatives of the opposition to tap telephone conversations of a person without institution of legal procedures. In other words, they unlawfully enter the phone numbers for tapping into the list pertaining to real investigation and search operations against a person reasonably suspected of committing a crime.

On October 13, 2011 Ex- Minister of Interior Affairs Yuriy Lutsenko said that the law enforcement officers set up observation of witnesses in his criminal case[5].

The searches in politically motivated cases have become widely spread and are currently used for pressure. For example, on July 7, 2011, the search was conducted at the office of the Kharkiv oblast organization of the party “Batkivshchyna”; on September 6, 2011 the search was conducted at the premises of the Prostoprint Co., which, observers believed, related to the imprints on shirts “Thanks to Donetsk residents…”, but the Ministry of Internal Affairs maintained that it related to the breach of copyright[6]. On October 12, 2011 the search was conducted in the house and office of People’s Deputy (faction BYuT-Batkivshchyna) Yevhen Suslov[7]; on October 13, 2011 the fiscal militia began searching the public association of Afghans “Nobody but us”, who were among the co-organizers of peaceful assemblies against liquidation of social benefits[8]. On October 19, 2001 the search was conducted of the apartment of ex-Minister of Coal Industry Viktor Poltavets[9]; on October 27, 2011 the search was conducted of the apartment of the former accountant of the corporation United Energy Systems of Ukraine (UESU) Lidiya Sokolchenko[10]. According to reports, the searches are also conducted at the enterprises, which either belong to opposition politicians or finance opposition activities[11].

On February 4, 2011 the legal proceedings were instituted against the daughter of the Head of Supreme Court of Ukraine Vasyl Onopenko Iryna on a fraud charge. Iryna Onopenko and her ex-husband were suspected in non-clearing-off the $300,000 debt. Later, the investigators searched five houses, including Vasyl Onopenko’s house, where, according to a tip, Iryna Onopenko might stay[12]. The observers believed that this was one way to pressure and control the Supreme Court of Ukraine. The charges were withdrawn after the meeting of the Head of the Supreme Court of Ukraine with President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych.

The problem concerns the procedure of searches and seizures carried out not at home or other estate, because such actions need no court order that does not meet international standards. Certain problems arise during the search of attorneys’ premises which may contain information that the persons entrusted to their lawyer and that need special protection. However, in practice there is no such protection.

In order to counter the so-called “computer terrorism” the SSU takes measures to control Internet users and regulate the Ukrainian segment of the network. Although there is no legal definition of SSU empowerment in this area, it still installs technical capabilities to monitor Internet users.

Although the Law of Ukraine “On protection of personal data” (adopted June 1, 2010)[13], which regulated the relations connected with the protection of personal data during their processing, entered into force on 1 January 2011, many people learned about it only in December 2011 due to the fact that from January 1, 2012 legal liability might be imposed for failure to provide information on databases compiled by legal and natural persons covered by the law, which stirred fever in data transfer. However, problems regarding the implementation of the law arose from the lack of general information about the law and its shortcomings.

The Law covers personal database creation and processing with the exception of individual PIMs only for non-pro personal or household use; journalist performing his official or professional duties; and professional authors for creative activity.

By the law, all personal information other than impersonal personal data are classified data withheld from general circulation, except where law prohibits referring data to classified personal info of certain categories of citizens or their exhaustive list.

In particular, one cannot withhold from general circulation personal data of an individual claiming to hold or holds an elected office (in the representative bodies) or a civil service post in the first category, except for the information so classified by law.

Under the law, the personal data should be processed on purpose only; in case of changes a new person’s consent will be needed for personal data processing, and the PIM should be commensurate with the purpose of processing.

PIM processing cannot be allowed without person’s prior consent, except in cases determined by law and only in the interests of national security, economic prosperity, and human rights. After expiration of time necessary for their purpose, all personal data must be impersonalized.

Although this law was passed to ensure implementation by Ukraine of the Convention of the Council of Europe “On Protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data”[14], but its redaction proved to be faulty and contained a number of shortcomings and contradictions. Thus, the lack of separation of general (full name, name and patronymic, citizenship, place and date of birth) and sensitive personal data creates unnecessary obstacles and leads to bizarre situations in which fixation of names of persons may be considered a transgression. For example, the academic registering in high school may be pronounced PIM processing in terms of this law.

Similarly, the requirement of processing of personal data for scientific, statistical and historical purposes in impersonal form can lead to absurd situations when the use of family names, names and patronymics in the scientific and historical works can be viewed as a violation of the law, as well as collecting information about famous historical figures, publishing biographies or memoirs, which contain a list of persons mentioned in them.

There remains an unresolved question about publishing of personal data, if they are of public interest, particularly in the context of the Law “On Access to Public Information.”

It should also be recognized that the law does not answer the question concerning personal data of deceased.

It is unclear what to do when the person withholds her/his consent to process personal data under contractual relationship between the parties, such as replacing faulty household appliances under warranty or in the case of employment relationship, as well as in the case of the right to education of a person who disagrees with the processing of personal data or to transfer personal data to the third parties.

The law provides for the duty of the personal data holder to inform in writing the subject of personal data of her/his rights in connection with the inclusion of her/his data into personal data base within 10 working days from the date of such placement. However, it is unclear what to is to be done when there is no mailing address of such person.

The fuzzy definition of personal data removal may lead to numerous conflicts related to the requirement of subjects of personal data to remove personal data, whereas without such personal data the relevant social relations are impossible.

The law does not cover personal data processing for the use of media.

According to President of Imena.UA Olexandr Olshanskiy, the Law “On protection of personal data” led to the fact that, due to unclear formulation, the registrars of domain names had to abandon the public availability of Whois data, despite that, strictly speaking, such information is not personal data[15].

On 02.06.2011, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the Law “On Amending Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding Enhancement of Responsibility for Violation of Legislation on Personal Data Protection”, which came into force on 01.01.2012, but later the legal validity date was postponed[16].

The Law makes changes in the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and provides that “failure or untimely notice of the subject of personal data of her/his rights in connection with the inclusion of his personal data into the database of personal data, the purpose of collecting these data and the persons to whom these data are transferred” shall result in inflicting a fine from 200 to 300 tax-free minimum incomes (tfmi), and guilty officials and individuals-entrepreneurs shall pay from 300 to 400 tfmi. In addition, for “failure or untimely notice of the specially authorized central executive body for the protection of personal data of change in information submitted for state registration database of personal data” the guilty person will be fined from 100 to 200 tfmi, and officials and businesspersons from 200 to 400 tfmi. If the infringement is repeated during the year, the person will be brought to administrative responsibility and fined from 300 to 500 tfmi, and the officials and citizens-entrepreneurs from 400 to 700 tfmi.

In case of evasion of the state registration of personal database the imposed fine shall make from 300 to 500 tfmi (officials and citizens-entrepreneurs from 500 to 1000 tfmi). At the same time, failure to observe the legislation on personal data protection in PIM database that has resulted in unlawful access to them shall be fined from 300 to 1000 tfmi.

Article 182 of the Criminal Code has been also amended; the new redaction stipulates that for “illegal collection, storage, use, destruction, publication of confidential information about a person or an illegal change of such information, except in accordance with other articles of the Code” the fine shall make from 500 to 1000 tfmi or correctional labor for up to two years, or imprisonment for up to six months, or imprisonment for up to three years. In the event that such actions are committed repeatedly, or if they have caused any substantial damage to legally protected rights, freedoms and interests of individuals (damage in the form of material damage is considered substantial if it is 100 or more times greater than minimum subsistence income), the guilty person shall be punished with arrest for a term of three to six months or imprisonment for a term of three to five years, or imprisonment for the same term[17].

On May 25, 2011, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine issued Resolution No. 616 “On approval of the State Register of Personal Data and Its Maintenance”[18].

The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine is the main central authority responsible for development and implementation of national legal policy on personal data protection.

The Decree of the President of Ukraine dated April 6, 2011 No. 390/2011 approves the Regulation on the State Service of Ukraine on Personal Data Protection[19] that defines the tasks and functions of the State Service of Ukraine on Personal Data Protection. The Service shall be responsible for: 1) advancing proposals on the state policy on personal data protection, 2) implementation of state policy on personal data protection, 3) control over compliance with legislation on personal data protection, and 4) implementation of international legal cooperation in the area of personal data protection.

The discretionary powers of the State Service of Ukraine on Protection of Personal Data are extremely broad. Specifically, there are very wide margins of sanctions provided for violation of relevant rules, not to mention the extraordinary in comparison with other articles of the Code of administrative violations, the size of penalty. There are also doubts concerning the expediency of the absolute right of access to premises where the processing of personal data takes place.

According to representatives of the State Service of Ukraine on Protection of Personal Data, 18 applications for registration of databases were submitted in July 2011, 144 in August, 248 in September, 452 in October, 12,272 in November, and over 400,000 in December. According to preliminary estimates, it comes to registration of about 3 million databases[20]. This number of databases indicates the overly broad scope of this Law.

However, there is a likelihood that the provisions of the Law “On protection of personal data” are employed to carry out selective pressure on certain businesses or organizations.

On January 18, 2011 on the orders of the Administration of the President of Ukraine to gather information as part of the program to prevent spread of the AIDS epidemic among drug addicts the heads of regional departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine received the instruction No. 40/2/1-106 of the MIA of Ukraine “On the monitoring of persons participating In substitution therapy.”

It included the following objectives: to establish full legal and actual address of hospitals providing replacement maintenance therapy (RMT), number of people involved in it, separately noting those who use methadone and bupremorphine; while following instructions for the listed assigned drug addicts and RMT patients it is advisable to interview each person, her/his family filling in the questionnaire. The explanation form and appended sheet include as follows: PIM, treatment circumstances, psychological and physical condition, and HIV info.

Subsequently, the chief management of the regional departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) sent requests for lists of RMT patients and their PIMs to the heads of narcological dispensaries[21].

It should be noted that at present the main electronic classifier, which is based on the collection and processing of personal data of citizens of Ukraine by public authorities, is the identification number provided by the State Tax Administration. The sphere of its use goes far beyond the purpose for which it was established by law, i.e. tax accounting. In the absence of an identification code the legal employment, access to pensions, realization of the right to education, receipt of scholarships and unemployment benefits, processing subsidies, bank accounts, registering of a business entity, receipt of state diplomas and more are impossible. So, there is an established administrative practice of deliberate violation by public authorities of the Law of Ukraine on a single register of natural persons-taxpayers and use of tax numbers for other purposes than those covered by this Law.

However, one can expect that the Law “On protection of personal data” will provide an opportunity to limit such use.

On September 27, 2011 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the Law “On the documents that prove identity and citizenship of Ukraine”, which provided for the introduction of biometric passports in the form of plastic cards, which would replace the internal passport of the citizen of Ukraine. It was to include an embedded chip with biometric information and a number of additional security features. The passport card should contain the following information: country name, title of the document, document type, country code, document number, person’s name, nationality, date of birth, number of SIS record (State information system for registration of individuals and their documentation), sex, place of birth and date of issue, authority which issued the document, term of validity, “digitized image of a person,” and “digitized signature.”

The law was severely criticized by journalists, opposition, civil organizations, and by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine[22].

On October 21, 2011 the President of Ukraine vetoed this Law[23].

However, earlier, on October 20, 2011 the Ministry of Internal Affairs signed an agreement with the consortium EDAPS to purchase equipment for the first phase of introduction of passports with biometric data. The cost of the transaction amounted to UAH59.93 million. It was an uncompetitive one-bidder auction. Due to the veto, V. Hrytsak, allegedly participating in EDAPS, accused the Minister of Justice in agreement on the production of passports with the German enterprise[24].

In November 2011 the President of Ukraine instructed the Prime Minister to print driver’s licenses using the equipment owned by MIA[25]. The observers believe that such actions are related to the monopolization of the document production market by EDAPS Corp. and fixing of inflated prices[26].

On January 31, 2011 the National Bank of Ukraine issued the Resolution #22 changing the rules of the instruction “On the implementation of financial monitoring by banks” and determining the term from April 22 to October 22 for banks to collect in-depth data about customers. Now, what matters is not only the passport data, identification number, place of employment, position, telephone number and email address, but also such sensitive data as information about the movable and immovable property of the customer, accounts in securities, forecast of the volume of transactions and the sources of income. Some banks refused to serve customers in case of refusal to fill in such forms[27].

On September 23, 2011 there came into force the NBU Resolution No. 278 of 21.09.2011 which revised the currency exchange operations in Ukraine; according to the new scheme, when buying or selling currency (equivalent to UAH 50.000) the customer should present a passport or other document of identity providing evidence of residence.

The National Bank of Ukraine also sent a letter No. 28-211/3760-11058 of 21 September, which obliged the banks and exchange offices to keep copies of pages of identification document containing data on which the identification of the person was made, and this requirement covers all currency exchange operations equivalent to UAH 50.000[28]. Subsequently, the National Bank of Ukraine made changes providing that if a person sold foreign currency, s/he did not need copying her/his passport.

There remains an unresolved issue of legal principles of video surveillance in public places. According to European standards[29], the video surveillance can take place, but it must meet the following requirements: the zones of video surveillance should be systematically mark; there is a need to establish an independent national body for independent control of organization of video surveillance, as well as storing and using information about the person.

The compulsory medical procedures, such as centralized vaccination of children, are still discussed in media[30]. For example, in the absence of vaccination the child cannot be admitted to school or kindergarten. However, the procedure of vaccination is not indisputable[31]. Thus, on May 10, 2011 the Ministry of Justice canceled the decision on state registration of the Calendar of preventive vaccinations in Ukraine approved by the Ministry of Health Care of Ukraine from February 3, 2006 No. 48 registered with the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on June 2, 2006 for No. 665/12539[32].

The opponents of vaccination refer to domestic legislation, arguing that vaccination may take place only with the consent of the person, and if the person is less than 15 years of age the consent of her/his parents shall be needed. As for the ban to attend child-care facilities for non-vaccinated children, they argue that it is contrary to the constitutional right to education.

The European Court of Human Rights continued making new decisions concerning violation of the right to privacy by Ukraine. By this time, however, the law has not been changed in accordance with the judgment in the case “The Volokhs vs. Ukraine” concerning the procedure of tapping communication channels.

On 21.07.2011 the European Court of Human Rights in the case “Hrymkovska vs. Ukraine”[33] adjudged the state guilty of violating Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered Ukraine to pay the applicant €10,000 indemnification for the fact that in 1998, the street near the house, where she lived, made trafficable for trucks, turning the street with a block of houses on it into a part of international superhighway. As a result, the local residents suffered from excessive noise, vibration, and dust. On the road that was not designed for such loads appeared potholes. According to the applicant, the local authorities, instead of repairing the road, filled the potholes with coal waste. The sanitary station, which had studied the ecological situation on the street, found that 130 vehicles drove by hourly. Half of them polluted the environment above the norm, experts said. In particular, the copper and lead content exceeded the maximum permissible concentration 23 and 7.5 times, respectively. Although in 2001 the claimant appealed to the local court and sought to force local authorities to provide family with another dwelling and compensation due to family health hazard, the court dismissed the petition without a reasonable explanation.

The European Court of Human Rights took into account that the Ukrainian authorities have not conducted necessary research before making the street trafficable for trucks. In addition, Natalia Hrymkovska had no opportunity to defend its position in the national court, because her claim was rejected in the very first instance. Although the Court had no evidence that it was the superhighway that influenced the development of diseases of Natalia Hrymkovska’s family members and cracks in her house, the Court concluded that the cumulative effect of noise, vibration, air and soil pollution had a negative impact on the family life of the applicant.

On February 10, 2011 the European Court of Human Rights found a violation by Ukraine of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case “Dubetska et al. vs. Ukraine”.

The applicants (eleven Ukrainian citizens) have argued that the authorities had violated the right to housing, personal and family life, not protecting them from excessive pollution created by two state-run industrial enterprises: mine “Viseyska” and Public Corporation “Lviv Coal Company.” These enterprises contaminated underground water and soil, caused dust settling, damaged buildings of applicants who lived in the buffer zone of the mine. Drinking water was delivered irregularly and destruction of buildings caused by soil flash was not indemnified. In addition, severe environmental factors led to the complication of family relations. Contamination led to devaluation of their houses and inability to sell them and move to environmentally cleaner area.

Despite the fact that the authorities (in particular, sanitary inspection) repeatedly demanded that the mine takes measures to control the buffer zone of the enterprise, including issuing orders to close it; nevertheless it continued to work. Although the director of the mine was obliged to provide new housing habitation for the buffer zone residents, he failed to comply pleading the lack of state funding. Appeals for protection to the national courts were inconclusive.

The court obliged Ukraine to pay the victims monetary compensation of €65,000 and also found it necessary to implement decisions of national courts on resettlement of the applicants to a safe place.

On July 7, 2011, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the case “Fedorov and Fedorova vs. Ukraine.”

On June 15, 2001 psychiatrist of Poltava Central Hospital F. examined the applicant in the courtyard of his house in connection with the complaints of his neighbors. The doctor did not warn the applicant that he performs psychiatric examination. This conversation lasted about 10 minutes, after which the applicant had tried to take pictures of the doctor and ambulances. Based on this examination of the applicant, the psychiatrist set the diagnosis “raving chronic disorder.” The letter with this diagnosis and opinion about the necessity of forensic examination of the applicant for further inpatient treatment signed by the head of Poltava Central Hospital was sent to the Poltava District Court of Poltava City.

Subsequently, the applicant repeatedly complained that he was illegally examined and inspected.

The Court decided that in the case of the first applicant the violation of Article 8 of the Convention on the conduct of his psychiatric examination against his will took place on June 15, 2001 with diagnosis set as “chronic manic disorder.” The Court appointed the first applicant just satisfaction in the amount of €15,000, and the second applicant €2,000 in respect of incorporeal damage.

Recommendations

1. Improve the Law of Ukraine “On protection of personal data”: to finalize it and remove gaps and contradictions, providing, inter alia, for the implementation of the following principles:

—  bring out common (last name, first name, middle name, citizenship, date and place of birth) and sensitive personal data, providing for them different access mode;

—  different ID numbers (databases of different authorities) should be used separately; the uniform code to collect all information about a person is not allowed;

—  sharing information among authorities must be clearly regulated and conducted by law or court order with proper notification of people about it and the right of appeal.

2. It is necessary to stop the administrative practice of unlawful use of ID numbers (code) of the taxpayer for any other purpose not provided for by law. It is necessary also to discontinue the use of the term “personal number”, the usage of which is not provided by any law.

3. Annul the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 1169 from September 26, 2007 “On approval of the procedure of receiving court permission to take measures to temporarily restrict human rights, and use of the information” and adopt a relevant law instead, which should clearly define the procedure for channel tapping (tapping phones, cell phones, e-messaging tracking, monitoring of Internet browsing):

—  procedure for obtaining a court order to do so and the terms on which this can be done;

—  procedure for periodic review by the court of granted sanctions;

—  post-notification of the person about tapping and dismissal of the charge or termination of criminal proceedings;

—  the individual’s right to appeal this action to court and claim compensation in case of unjustified actions of the authorities;

—  procedure of data storage and future use.

4. Amend the legislation providing for independent control of the activities of the State Service for Special Communication and Information Protection of Ukraine, Security Service of Ukraine and other law enforcement agencies regarding the tapping, publishing of annual report containing impersonal data regarding the tapping for operative crime detection activities.

5. Establish procedures in litigation allowing for procedure for appealing against the actions of law enforcers conducting search of a person, her/his home and workplace, and ability to claim compensation in case of violation of the search procedure.

6. Introduce a regulation about annual publishing by law enforcement agencies of the total number of permits for tapping and permits for interception of correspondence and searches.

7. MIA should stop unmotivated collection of sensitive personal data about a person (information on political creed, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, participation in substitutive therapy, etc.).

8. Change the law on secrecy of adoption (keeping secrecy even from the child). In particular, you should make exceptions to the provisions of the law, which establishes the absolute secrecy of adoption (Articles 226, 229, 230 of the Family Code, Article 168 of the Criminal Code).

9. Adopt a bill and regulations protecting the rights of patients, particularly in the implementation of compulsory medical procedures and privacy of health info.

10. It is necessary to amend the legislation and legal practice in order to resolve the contradiction between compulsory vaccinations for attendance of child care centers and the right to education for children whose parents deliberately refuse to carry out such vaccinations, especially when such vaccinations are contraindicated for the child or cause harm.

11. It is necessary to amend legislation that would adjust Ukrainian legislation in accordance with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the procedure of tapping (tapping of phones and mobile phones, timing of calls, tracking movements of the mobile phone owner, e-messages tracking, monitoring of Internet browsing, etc.):

—  procedure for obtaining a court order for such actions and their timing;

—  strict list of offenses which may lead to wiretapping;

—  limiting to cases in which the actual reason to suspect a person of committing a grave or especially grave crime was established by other means;

—  procedure for periodic review by the court of granted sanction;

—  notifying the person of the fact of wire tapping after the event and dismissal of the charge or termination of criminal proceedings;

—  the individual’s right of appeal in court and claim compensation in case of unjustified actions of the authorities;

—  data storage and use;

—  circumstances under which records can or should be erased;

—  mechanism for handling copies or rewritten material if the accused person is acquitted.

11. Regulate video surveillance in public places, providing for, among other things, storage and erasure of records.

12. Stop using searches as politically motivated means of ensuring loyalty and persecution of political opponents.

 

 

[1]  Prepared by Ruslan Topolevsky, Center for Legal and Political Studies “SIM”.

[2]  http://www.helsinki.org.ua/index.php?id=1233228499

[3]  The Enactment of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine from September 26, 2007 No. 1169 “On approval of the procedure of receiving court permission to take measures to temporarily restrict human rights, and use of the received data” // http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/cgi -bin/laws/main.cgi? nreg = 1169-2007-% EF

[4]  The Volokhs vs. Ukraine (2006).

[5]  http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/politics/1271707-lucenko-miliciya-sledit-za-svidetelyami-po-moemu-delu

[6]  http://ua.korrespondent.net/ukraine/events/1258967-mvs-kompaniyu-prostoprint-obshukali-ne-cherez-futbolki-spasibi-zhitelyam-donbasu

[7]  http://ua.korrespondent.net/ukraine/events/1271465-mvs-zayavlyae-shcho-soratnik-timoshenko-pidozryuetsya-v-pidrobci-dokumentiv

[8]  http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/politics/1271849-v-mvd-zayavili-chto-obysk-v-ofise-afgancev-provodit-nalogovaya

[9]  http://ua.korrespondent.net/ukraine/politics/1276049-mogilov-nazvav-prichinu-obshukiv-u-ministra-kabminu-timoshenko

[10]  http://ua.korrespondent.net/ukraine/politics/1276957-siloviki-provodyat-obshuk-u-kvartiri-kolishnogo-golovnogo-buhgaltera-kompaniyi-eesu

[11]  http://ua.korrespondent.net/bbc/1239196-ft-ukrayinska-vlada-vzyalasya-za-sponsoriv-opoziciyi

[12]  http://novynar.com.ua/politics/153387

[13]  http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2297-17

[14]  http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_326

[15]  http://www.pcweek.ua/themes/detail.php?ID=132037

[16]  http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3454-17

[17]  Up to 01.07.2012 the following redaction of Article 182 of the Criminal Code shall take effect: “The illegal collection, storage, use or publication of confidential information about individuals without their consent or publication of this information in a public addresses, publicly displayed work, or media are punished by the fine up to fifty tax-free minimum incomes, or correctional labor up to two years, or imprisonment for up to six months, or imprisonment for up to three years.”

[18]  http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/616-2011-% D0% BF

[19]  http://zpd.gov.ua/R/perelik/perelik/24.htm

[20]  http://biz.liga.net/all/it/intervyu/2108926-gossluzhba-pisma-s-zayavleniyami-po-bazam-dannykh-prikhodyat-meshkami.htm

[21]  http://helsinki.org.ua/index.php?id=1296465225

[22]  http://tyzhden.ua/Politics/31786, http://tyzhden.ua/News/31433, http://helsinki.org.ua/index.php?id=1306315204

[23]  http://news.dt.ua/POLITICS/yanukovich_vetuvav_skandalniy_zakon_pro_biometrichni_pasporti-90007.html

[24]  http://news.dt.ua/POLITICS/za_den_do_veto_yanukovicha_mogilov_zaplativ_edapsu_60_milyoniv-90326.html

[25]  http://news.dt.ua/ECONOMICS/yanukovich_vidibrav_u_edapca_pravo_drukuvati_vodiyski_prava-92628.html

[26]  http://news.dt.ua/POLITICS/brodskiy_upevneniy,_scho_yanukovich_vetue_zakon_pro_pasportni_kartki-88737.html, http://news.dt.ua/ECONOMICS/edaps_prodae_ukrayintsyam_zakordonni_pasporti_na__10_dolariv_dorozhche,_nizh_britaniya-94052.html

[27]  http://tsn.ua/groshi/nacbank-zbiraye-dosye-na-kliyentiv-usih-ukrayinskih-bankiv.html

[28]  http://tyzhden.ua/News/31225

[29]  European commission for democracy through law (Venice commission), Opinion “On video surveillance in public places by public authorities and the protection of human rights”, Adopted by the Venice commission at its 70th plenary session (Venice, 16-17 March 2007), http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2007/CDL-AD (2007) 014-e.asp.

[30]  http://podrobnosti.ua/podrobnosti/2011/12/20/810720.html

[31]  http://odessa-daily.com.ua/component/content/article/162/42263-vredonosnaya-datskaya-vakcina.html

[32]  http://www.minjust.gov.ua/0/35059

[33]  http://helsinki.org.ua/index.php?id=1311581724

Recommend this post
X




forgot the password

registration

X

X

send me a new password


on top