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

upheld the convictions and increased the sentences. In April 1984 the Court of Cassation dismissed
an appeal on points of law by the applicants.
B. Proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights
The applications made by Mr and Mrs Huvig on 9 August 1984 and by Mr Kruslin on 16 October
1985 were declared admissible by the Commission on 6 July 1988 and 6 May 1988 respectively -
the Huvigs' in part and Mr Kruslin's in its entirety.
Having attempted unsuccessfully to achieve friendly settlements, the Commission drew up two
reports 2 on 14 December 1988 in which it established the facts and expressed the opinion (by 10
votes to 2) that there had been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
The Commission referred the cases to the Court on 16 March 1989.
II. SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENTS 3
I. Article 8 of the Convention
The Court found that the interceptions complained of amounted to interferences by a public
authority with the exercise of the applicants’ right to respect for their correspondence and their
private life. It proceeded to ascertain whether such interferences were justified under paragraph 2 of
Article 8.
[See paragraph 26 of the Kruslin judgment and paragraph 25 of the Huvig judgment.]
A. "In accordance with the law"
The expression "in accordance with the law", within the meaning of Article 8 § 2, required firstly
that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also referred to the quality
of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who had
moreover to be able to foresee its consequences for him, and compatible with the rule of law.
[See paragraph 27 of the Kruslin judgment and paragrapn 26 of the Huvig judgment.]
1. Whether there had been a legal basis in French law
It had been a matter of dispute before the Commission and the Court whether the first condition had been
satisfied. The applicants had said it had not been. The Government submitted that by "law" was meant
the law in force in a given legal system, in this instance a combination of the written law - essentially
Articles 81, 151 and 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - and the case-law interpreting it.
The Delegate of the Commission considered that in the case of the Continental countries, including
France, only a substantive enactment of general application - whether or not passed by Parliament -
could amount to a “law” for the purposes of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.
[See paragraph 28 of the Kruslin judgment and paragraph 27 of the Huvig judgment.]
2 The reports are available to the press and the public on application to the Registrar of the Court.
3 This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.
33