The commented judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal recognises that the complete and lifelong exclusion of expungement of a criminal convicted for so-called paedophilia crimes is consistent with the principle of humanitarianism, the right to privacy, the right to personal freedom and the freedom to choose an occupation. In the author’s opinion, the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal deserves criticism. The Tribunal refers only to the superficial degree to the constitutional problem presented to it, which in fact has been reduced to a simple conflict between “the rights of a criminal” and the abstractly understood “best interest of a child”. The reasonings lack any considerations as to whether the examined solution is effective in practice, i.e. whether it actually contributes to the protection of children against sexual offenders. The judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal illustrates the loosening of the standard for assessing the admissibility of restrictions on civil rights and freedoms, in which the overriding goal (in this case, “the child’s best interest”) plays a central role, while the fact whether a given solution is at least useful or necessary or proportionate is less significant.

The commented judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal recognises that the complete and lifelong exclusion of expungement of a criminal convicted for so-called paedophilia crimes is consistent with the principle of humanitarianism, the right to privacy, the right to personal freedom and the freedom to choose an occupation. In the author’s opinion, the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal deserves criticism. The Tribunal refers only to the superficial degree to the constitutional problem presented to it, which in fact has been reduced to a simple conflict between “the rights of a criminal” and the abstractly understood “best interest of a child”. The reasonings lack any considerations as to whether the examined solution is effective in practice, i.e. whether it actually contributes to the protection of children against sexual offenders. The judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal illustrates the loosening of the standard for assessing the admissibility of restrictions on civil rights and freedoms, in which the overriding goal (in this case, “the child’s best interest”) plays a central role, while the fact whether a given solution is at least useful or necessary or proportionate is less significant.