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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2. Malone v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82 (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Interception of postal and telephone communications and release of information obtained from “metering” of telephones, both effected by or on behalf of the police within the general context of criminal investigation. C (84) 57 2.8.84 Press release issued by the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights JUDGMENT IN THE MALONE CASE On 2 August 1984 at Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights delivered judgment in the Malone case, which concerns the laws and practices in England and Wales allowing interception of communications and “metering" of telephones by or on behalf of the police. The Court unanimously held that there had been violation of Mr. James Malone's right to respect for his private life and his correspondence, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1 . The Court further considered, by sixteen votes to two, that it was unnecessary in the circumstances to examine Mr. Malone's complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy before a national authority) 2 . I. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE A. Principal facts *** 1. The applicant in the present case is Mr. James Malone, a United Kingdom citizen who currently resides in Dorking, Surrey, in England. In March 1977, he was charged with offences relating to the dishonest handling of stolen goods; he was ultimately acquitted. During his trial, it emerged that a telephone conversation to which he had been a party had been intercepted by the Post Office on behalf of the police on the authority of a warrant issued by the Home Secretary. 2. Mr. Malone further believes that, at the behest of the police, his correspondence has been intercepted, his telephone lines "tapped" and, in addition, his telephone "metered" by a device recording all the numbers dialled. Beyond admitting the interception of the one conversation adverted to in evidence at his trial, the United Kingdom Government have neither admitted nor denied the allegations concerning correspondence and tapping, and have denied that concerning metering; they have, however, accepted that the applicant, as a suspected receiver of stolen goods, was one of a class of persons whose postal and telephone communications were liable to be intercepted. 3. It has for long been the publicly known practice for interceptions of postal and telephone communications for the purposes of the detection and prevention of crime to be carried out on the authority of a warrant issued under the hand of a Secretary of State, as a general rule the Home Secretary. There is, however, no overall statutory code governing the matter. Nonetheless, various 1 The text of this article is set out in an appendix to the present release. 2 The text of this article is set out in an appendix to the present release. 16
statutory provisions are relevant, including one under which the Post Office - as from 1981, the Post Office and British Telecommunications - may be required to inform the Crown about matters transmitted through the postal or telecommunication services. 4. There also exists a practice, of which Parliament has been informed, whereby the telephone service - the Post Office prior to 1921 and thereafter British Telecommunications - makes and supplies records of metering at the request of the police in connection with police enquiries into the commission of crime. 5. In October Mr. Malone instituted civil proceedings in the High Court against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, seeking, amongst other things, a declaration that any tapping of conversations on his telephone without his consent was unlawful even if done pursuant to a warrant of the Secretary of State. The Vice-Chancellor, Sir Robert Megarry, dismissed his claim in February 1979. B. Proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights The present case originated in an application against the United Kingdom lodged with the Commission by Mr. Malone in July 1979. The Commission declared the application admissible in July 1981. In its report adopted in December 1982, the Commission expressed the opinion: - (by eleven votes, with one abstention) that there had been a breach of the applicant's rights under Article 8 by reason of the admitted interception of one of his telephone conversations and of the law and practice in England and Wales governing the interception of postal and telephone communications on behalf of the police; - (by seven votes against three, with two abstentions) that it was unnecessary in the circumstances of the case to investigate whether the applicant's rights had also been interfered with by the procedure known as "metering" of telephone calls; - (by ten votes against one, with one abstention) that there had been a breach of the applicant's rights under Article 13 in that the law in England and Wales did not provide an "effective remedy before a national authority" in respect of interceptions carried out under a warrant. The Commission referred the case to the Court in May 1983. II. SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT 3 A. ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 1. Scope of the issues before the Court The present case is concerned only with interception of communications and metering of telephones effected by or on behalf of the police within the general context of a criminal investigation, together with the relevant legal and administrative framework. 3 This summary, drafted by the registry, does not bind the court. 17
Page 1: DP (2006) CASE LAW CASE LAW OF THE
Page 4 and 5: 12. Murray v. The United Kingdom, j
Page 6 and 7: statements made by an MP subsequent
Page 9: JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF
Page 12 and 13: home and correspondence) and Articl
Page 14 and 15: - the lack of notification of surve
Page 18 and 19: [see paragraphs 63 and 85 of the ju
Page 20 and 21: This finding removed the need for t
Page 22 and 23: 3. Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 2
Page 24 and 25: public authorities are empowered to
Page 26 and 27: For further information, reference
Page 28 and 29: B. Proceedings before the Commissio
Page 30 and 31: D. Application of Article 50 1. Pec
Page 32 and 33: 5. Kruslin v. France, judgment of 2
Page 34 and 35: The Court pointed out, firstly, tha
Page 36 and 37: [See paragraph 40 of the judgment a
Page 38 and 39: 13. Miss B., wishing to marry her f
Page 40 and 41: II. THE MERITS A. Alleged violation
Page 42 and 43: 50. In the Government’s opinion,
Page 44 and 45: (b) Documents 59. (a) The applicant
Page 47 and 48: 7. Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment o
Page 49 and 50: een aware of. Moreover, the applica
Page 51 and 52: 8. Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of
Page 53 and 54: 2. In the Court's opinion, the inte
Page 55 and 56: 9. Funke v. France judgment of 25 F
Page 57 and 58: B. Proceedings before the European
Page 59 and 60: 1. "In accordance with the law” T
Page 61 and 62: Matscher (Austrian) , Mr L.E. Petti
Page 63 and 64: 10. Hoffmann v. Austria, judgment o
Page 65 and 66: The Court therefore accepted that t
Page 67 and 68:
Article 50 "If the Court finds that
Page 69 and 70:
B. Proceedings before the European
Page 71 and 72:
In accordance with the Convention,
Page 73 and 74:
3. Mrs Murray was arrested by the A
Page 75 and 76:
4. The level of "suspicion" require
Page 77 and 78:
arrest and detention of persons sus
Page 79 and 80:
13. Z. v. Finland, judgment of 25 F
Page 81 and 82:
the Court have jurisdiction to ente
Page 83 and 84:
(iii) Duration of the confidentiali
Page 85 and 86:
14. Halford v. The United Kingdom,
Page 87 and 88:
2. The office telephones: (i) exist
Page 89 and 90:
15. Anne-Marie Andersson v. Sweden,
Page 91 and 92:
Accordingly, it transpired from the
Page 93 and 94:
In May 1992 the Social Insurance Of
Page 95 and 96:
Accordingly, it appeared from the v
Page 97 and 98:
Procedure Act (“the FCPA”) whic
Page 99 and 100:
Secondly, tapping and other forms o
Page 101 and 102:
18. Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain,
Page 103 and 104:
exercise of his right to respect fo
Page 105 and 106:
19. Lambert v. France, judgment of
Page 107 and 108:
The second requirement which derive
Page 109 and 110:
20. Fressoz and Roire v. France , j
Page 111 and 112:
The Court had in particular to dete
Page 113 and 114:
21. Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. The
Page 115 and 116:
were not in question. Insofar as th
Page 117 and 118:
public order aims pursued by the Go
Page 119 and 120:
Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Presid
Page 121 and 122:
23. Amann v. Switzerland, judgment
Page 123 and 124:
was the surveillance of persons sus
Page 125 and 126:
24. Rotaru v. Romania, judgment of
Page 127 and 128:
As to the Government’s submission
Page 129 and 130:
25. Khan v. The United Kingdom, jud
Page 131 and 132:
26. P.G. and J.H. v. The United Kin
Page 133 and 134:
evidence was heard by the judge alo
Page 135 and 136:
27. Krone Verlag Gmbh & Co. KG v. A
Page 137 and 138:
28. Mikulić v. Croatia, judgment o
Page 139 and 140:
means enabling an independent autho
Page 141 and 142:
30. Christine Goodwin v. the United
Page 143 and 144:
Though the Court did not underestim
Page 145 and 146:
31. M.G v. the United Kingdom, judg
Page 147 and 148:
32. Taylor-Sabori v. the United Kin
Page 149 and 150:
33. Allan v. the United Kingdom, ju
Page 151 and 152:
34. A. v. the United Kingdom, judgm
Page 153 and 154:
in the reporting of parliamentary p
Page 155 and 156:
35. Peck v. the United Kingdom, jud
Page 157 and 158:
The application was lodged with the
Page 159 and 160:
36. Odièvre v. France (application
Page 161 and 162:
child’s, and subsequently the adu
Page 163 and 164:
37. Perry. v. the United Kingdom, j
Page 165 and 166:
The Court noted that the photograph
Page 167 and 168:
The main task of the Court was to a
Page 169 and 170:
The Court noted that the matters co
Page 171 and 172:
The applicant complained under Arti
Page 173 and 174:
On 16 and 26 September 2003 the Pre
Page 175 and 176:
43. Wisse v. France, judgment of 20
Page 177 and 178:
44. Turek v. Slovakia , judgment of
Page 179 and 180:
violation of his right to respect f
Page 181 and 182:
Ms Segerstedt-Wiberg is the daughte
Page 183 and 184:
that background, the Court found th
Page 185 and 186:
the Security Police whether to advi
Page 187 and 188:
parquet, au motif que la présentat
Page 189 and 190:
41. Enfin, la Cour estime que les i
Page 191 and 192:
interception of telecommunications
Page 193 and 194:
egards the monitoring of individual
Page 195 and 196:
5. the counterfeiting of money (Gel
Page 197 and 198:
amended G 10 Act. The federal legis
Page 199 and 200:
sentence, no notification was given
Page 201 and 202:
Moreover, the first applicant had f
Page 203 and 204:
80. Such interferences are justifie
Page 205 and 206:
Law or arbitrariness in its applica
Page 207 and 208:
106. The Court reiterates that when
Page 209 and 210:
measures remained in force for a fa
Page 211 and 212:
applied and data be transmitted if
Page 213 and 214:
(see above, paragraph74). She relie
Page 215 and 216:
151. The Court observes that in the
Page 217 and 218:
48. Panteleyenko v. Ukraine (no. 11
Page 219 and 220:
The Court also noted that the appli
Page 221:
The applicant complained about the
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?