case law of the european court of human rights concerning the ...

1. Klass and others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no.28 (No violation of
the Convention). Law authorising secret services to carry out secret monitoring of
communications (postal and telephone).
C (78) 37
6.9.78
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
DELIVERS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KLASS AND OTHERS
The following information is communicated by the Registrar of the European Court of Human
Rights:
On 6 September 1978, the European Court of Human Rights delivered judgment in the case of Klass
and others. This case concerns the 1968 legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany restricting
the secrecy of the mail, post and telecommunications - legislation which permits measures of secret
surveillance under certain circumstances. The Court held unanimously that there had been no breach
of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judgment was read out at a public hearing by Mr. G.J. Wiarda, Vice-President of the Court.
***
I. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT
1. The applicants, who are German nationals, are Gerhard Klass, a public prosecutor, Peter
Lubberger, a lawyer, Jürgen Nussbruch, a judge, Hans-Jürgen Pohl and Dieter Selb, lawyers.
2. Legislation passed in 1968 - namely an amendment to Article 10 §2 of the Basic Law and an Act of
13 August 1968 restricting the right to secrecy of mail, post and telecommunications - authorises in
certain circumstances secret surveillance without the need to inform the person concerned, In addition,
the legislation excludes legal remedy before the courts in respect of the ordering and implementation
of the surveillance measures; it institutes instead supervision by two agencies, that is a Board of five
Members of Parliament appointed by the Bundestag and a Commission of three members nominated
by that Board.
3. Following an appeal lodged by the applicants, the Federal Constitutional Court held on 15
December 1970 that the Act of 13 August 1968 was void insofar as it prevented notification to the
subject of the surveillance even when such notification could be made without jeopardising the
purpose of the restriction.
4. In June 1971, the applicants lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human
Rights. They claimed that the above-mentioned legislation involves breaches of three Articles of the
European Convention on Human Rights, namely Article 6 §l (the right to a fair hearing before a
court in civil or criminal proceedings), Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life,
11