CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 janvier 1993

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                             AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 19173/91                       by J.S.                       against the United Kingdom           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 8 January 1993, the following members being present:              MM.    J.A. FROWEIN, President of the First Chamber                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            Sir    Basil HALL            Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    M. PELLONPÄÄ                  G.B. REFFI              Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the First Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 7 September 1992 by J.S. against the United Kingdom, and registered on 9 September under file No. 19173/91;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:       THE FACTS         The applicant is a British citizen born in 1947.   She lives in Holsworthy in Devon and is represented before the Commission by her husband.         The applicant's husband took out an insurance policy covering loss of income through disability to work by reason of ill-health or disability.   He claimed on the policy in late 1984, and after proceedings were instituted, the High Court in April 1988 found in the applicant's husband's favour and awarded £750,000, payable in instalments until retirement age.         After the trial the applicant and her husband moved to Devon. Notwithstanding the move, the applicant considers that she and her husband have been subjected to surveillance by the insurance company. In particular, they list:         - a telephone call in early 1990, allegedly from the Department       of Health and Social Security, asking for personal details;         - a visit in November 1990 from a private detective, sent by the       insurance company;         - other surveillance by the insurance company, including the       applicant's and her husband's house being watched on at least       four occasions between February and October 1990.         In December 1990 the insurance company wrote a letter to the applicant's husband which included the following:         "We hereby categorically deny that any person has, with our       knowledge, authority or consent:-         (a) contacted your bank purporting to be or to represent either       you or your wife;         (b) telephoned you whilst impersonating a representative of the       Department of Social Security;         (c)   removed or stolen your diary or any of your papers or       possessions.         These are very serious allegations.   You refer to the existence       of a tape recording and we shall be obliged if you will loan us       the said tape, together with any other evidence in your       possession, in support of these complaints.   We undertake to       preserve them and return the same to you unharmed within ten       days.   It is imperative that we establish whether indeed someone,       purporting to represent this company, has been involved in any       such activities.       ...       [in accordance with a further medical examination ...] we       arranged for a local independent representative to enquire as to       your medical condition.   This enquiry was carried out openly and       without deception.   Our representative called at your house and       he produced his identity document.   He informed you that       seeking information regarding your illness or medical condition.       You invited him in, asking him firstly to wait in your kitchen       whilst you put your dogs away.   You then offered him tea in your       living room and conversed for a considerable period of time.   We       are told that the meeting was conducted amicably in an affable       manner.         If you had objected to his presence, you need only have       discontinued the conversation and asked him to leave.   We       unreservedly apologise, however, if the meeting has caused       distress either to you or your wife.   Certainly none such was       intended nor was our representative aware that you felt       inconvenienced."         The applicant has also submitted an extract from "Bella" magazine in which the insurance company is quoted as saying: "... to protect our policy-holders it is necessary to monitor claimants' progress.   We have explained this to Mr. Stevens and unreservedly apologised for any distress caused."         The applicant has been having recurrent nightmares about the insurance company and about feeling unable to get away from prying eyes.   Her consultant in clinical psychology has stated that her memory, concentration and relationships have been greatly impaired, that she has been afraid to go out, speak to people or even open the door:   she feels that she had no privacy and her every action was observed and adversely commented on.   She has been involved in psycho- therapy since January 1991.         In June 1991 the applicant applied for legal aid to sue the insurance company for harassment and to obtain an injunction and damages.   The application for legal aid was refused on 24 June 1991 and her appeal to the legal aid area office was refused on 21 August 1991. Requests for criminal proceedings to be brought have been rejected several times, the latest being on 29 August 1991 when the police informed the applicant that they could take no further action.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains that the United Kingdom has failed to provide any form of redress for individuals or groups whose privacy has been violated.   She alleges a violation of Articles 1, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.         In connection with Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant states that if there is no right in domestic law, then a hearing is denied.         In connection with Article 8, the applicant points out that without any remedy citizens cannot enforce their right to privacy.         In connection with Article 13, the applicant states that her right to privacy has been violated, and that she has no remedy.         THE LAW         The applicant alleges violation of Articles 1, 6, 8 and 13 (Art. 1, 6, 8, 13) of the Convention, alleging principally that her privacy has been violated and that United Kingdom law fails to provide any means for her to seek redress.         The Commission recalls that, under Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention, it may only receive an application from a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals where the applicant alleges a violation by one of the Contracting Parties of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and where that Party has recognised this competence of the Commission.   The Commission may not, therefore, receive applications against private individuals, such as the insurance company in the present case.   The Commission further recalls, however, that the obligation to secure the effective exercise of Convention rights may involve positive obligations of a State, and that these obligations may involve the adoption of measures even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (cf. Eur. Court H.R., X and Y v. the Netherlands judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, p. 11, para. 23).         In the present case, the Commission notes that the only interference with the applicant's private life which is accepted by the insurance company is the visit by the company's "independent representative" which apparently passed off without undue incident. In addition to that visit, reference is made by the applicant to a magazine article in which the insurance company is seen to have accepted that it "monitors claimants' progress".         The Commission finds no indication in the present case that the activities of the insurance company were conducted in a way which could give rise to positive obligations on the part of the State.   In particular, the Commission notes that the insurance company's activities were   directed to protecting its position in litigation which had taken place between the applicant's husband as plaintiff and the company, and that there is no reason to suppose that the insurance company was conducting any kind of "vendetta" against the applicant or her husband.         Finally, the Commission notes that the applicant has not suggested that the activities she complains of on the part of the insurance company are continuing, nor has she suggested that there is approval, tacit or express, on the part of the State authorities of the subject matter of her complaints.           In these circumstances, the Commission finds the application manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons the Commission unanimously           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.       Secretary to the First Chamber            President of the First Chamber            (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                           (J.A. FROWEIN)