CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 10 juillet 1998

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s85436119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s45AE5F73 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sC63A23C4 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .s22CB0842 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sC18989D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s2EF16B1D { width:35.4pt; display:inline-block } .s2ED52ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:13pt } INTERIM RESOLUTION DH (98) 212   HUMAN RIGHTS   APPLICATION No. 27237/95   GOVELL AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 1998 at the 637th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the report drawn up on 14 January 1998 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 26 May 1994 by a British national, Mr Michael Govell, against the United Kingdom;   Whereas on 18 February 1998 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article   32, paragraph   1, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article   48 of the Convention;   Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 26   February 1997, the applicant complained on the one hand, that the surveillance carried out by the police amounted to an unjustifiable interference with his private life, family life, home and correspondence and, on the other hand, that he had no effective remedy in relation to the alleged interference;   Whereas in its report the Commission concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention;   Whereas, at the 637th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention and agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 10 July 1998, that there had been in this case a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention,   Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case;     Decides to pursue the examination of the present case, in accordance with Article   32 of the Convention with a view to adopting the final resolution.