CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 15 juin 1992

.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 }       The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Kruslin case delivered on 24 April 1990 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling that the case originated in an application against France lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 16 October 1985 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Jean Kruslin, a French national, who complained of telephone tapping carried out during a criminal procedure instituted against him;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 16 March 1989;        Whereas in its judgment of 24 April 1990 the Court unanimously:   -     held that there had been a violation of Article 8      (art. 8) of the Convention;   -     held that the judgment in itself constituted      sufficient just satisfaction as to the alleged damage;   -     held that the respondent state was to pay the      applicant 20 000 French francs in respect of costs and      expenses;   -     dismissed the remainder of the claims under      Article 50 (art. 50);        Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;        Having invited the Government of France to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 24 April 1990, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;        Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of France gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;        Having satisfied itself that the Government of France has paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment,        Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.                   Appendix to Resolution DH(92)41          Information provided by the Government of France           during the examination of the Kruslin case                  by the Committee of Ministers        The act of 10 July 1991 concerning the secrecy of telecommunications, which came into force on 1 October 1991, added an Article 100 to the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to interceptions ordered by the judiciary.        Under Article 100-1 the investigating judge may, if the apposite penalty is equal or superior to two years imprisonment and when the investigation requires it, order the interception, recording and transcription of telecommunications.   The decision to intercept, which must be taken in writing, is not of a judicial nature and cannot be appealed.   Article 100-1 specifies that this decision must contain all elements permitting identification of the line to be intercepted and state the offence which justifies recourse to interception.   In addition it must specify its duration which Article 100-2 sets for a maximum period of four months, renewable only accordingly to the same conditions.        Article 100-4 provides that each interception and recording operation must be mentioned on a record which states the day and time when it began and when it finished.   The transcription of a communication which is of evidential value must also be recorded in accordance with Article 100-5.   This record becomes part of the file.        Article 100-6 provides that the recordings will be destroyed on the initiative of the prosecution after expiry of the time limit for bringing a prosecution and that such destruction be recorded.        Finally, under the terms of Article 100-7, no telephone line to a lawyer's office or his home may be intercepted without the President of the Bar having been previously informed by the investigating judge.        The sum awarded to the applicant by the Court was paid on 30 August 1991.