You are here:

Key facts of the case: 

Appellant was arrested; it is not clear for which offence or crime. The record says that he was arrested on the basis of Article 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered by the Public Prosecutor. Article 84 says that the suspect of an offence or crime may be arrested when he does not adhere to the conditions on which he is still free or when there is a risk of him fleeing. However, the police cannot arrest him just like that; the arrest has to be ordered by the Public Prosecutor. The appellant alleges that there was no prior order by the Public Prosecutor, although he signed the police record in which it said there was. The appellant claims that the record should be rectified, therefore, among other things on the basis of Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Charter. On 7 April 2014 the Head of the Municipal Police rejected this claim, saying that the facts of the record were not wrong and that the appellant has not proven that they are wrong. The State Council holds, in general,  that inaccurate and incomplete or wrong personal data must be rectified. Rectification should also take place if the processing of the data does not meet the requirement of Articles 6 and 7 of the Privacy Directive and is therefore unlawful. This is not the case here. The record has been signed by the appellant and he should prove that the record is wrong. The Head of the Municipal Police does not have to prove that he is right. Statements by third parties, such as the police officers, who said that the arrest had been ordered by the Public Prosecutor, should not be disputed before the Police, but be disputed in court.  

Outcome of the case: 

The person that has signed the record must prove that personal data are wrong. He has not succeeded in doing so. Statements made by police officers in the record must be disputed in court and not before the Police.