CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 18 juillet 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .sFCD7D858 { margin-left:1.65pt; border:1.5pt double #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7C35CBBD { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s9A734C56 { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBF10AB1 { border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A08084E { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s4CCA2433 { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s2AB3D1C6 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s9B8DC3B3 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sCE97D62E { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sC18575F0 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA0611542 { color:#000000 } .sA6524EF { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s8E7C0AC9 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s10785528 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sAAECE211 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA427913 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s116BEA21 { font-size:8pt }     Resolution ResDH(2005)68 concerning the violations of the right to private life by the police’s covert surveillance in the United Kingdom and of the right to an effective remedy (Govell against the United Kingdom and 5 other cases – see Appendix)   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 July 2005 at the 933rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 32 and of Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (referred to hereinafter as “the Convention”);   Having regard to the Committee’s decision adopted on 10 July 1998 under former Article 32 in the case of Govell against the United Kingdom (see Interim Resolution DH (98) 212);   Having regard also to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in 5 other cases (see Appendix) transmitted to the Committee under Article 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that all these cases originated in applications lodged against the United Kingdom with either the European Commission of Human Rights under former Article 25 or the European Court of Human Rights under Article 34 (see details in Appendix) and that the European Commission or the European Court declared admissible the applicants' complaints relating to covert surveillance of the applicants’ residence or workplace and, in all but the Hewitson case, the lack of an effective remedy in this respect;   Recalling that the Court or the Committee of Ministers held   - that in all these cases there had been violations of Article 8 of the Convention as the use of covert listening devices in residences or the workplace amounted to interference with the applicants’ private life not in accordance with the law;   - that in all these cases but the Hewitson case, there had also been violations of Article 13 of the Convention, due to the lack of effective remedies making it possible to challenge the interference with the private life at the domestic level;   - that the United Kingdom had to pay the applicants in all but the Armstrong case certain amounts in just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damages and for costs and expenses (see details in Appendix);   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention as amended by Protocol No. 11, which Rules are applicable by decision of the Committee of Ministers to cases under former Article 32;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken following the decisions of the Committee and the present judgments of the Court, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under former Article   32, paragraph   4, and Article 46 of the Convention to abide by them;   Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as those found by the Committee of Ministers and the European Court in the present cases; this information appears in the Appendix to this resolution;   Having satisfied itself that the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums awarded by the Court’s judgments or by the decision of the Committee of Ministers, including, where necessary, the default interest due (see Appendix);   Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the United Kingdom government, that it has exercised its functions under former Article 32 and Article 46 of the Convention in these cases.     Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2005)68   Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom during the examination of the Govell case and other cases by the Committee of Ministers   I.   Payment of just satisfaction   Cases Application No. Judgment/Decisions Time-limit for payment Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Payment on Govell Michael 27237/95 19/02/99 19/05/99 1 000 pounds sterling 2   135 pounds sterling 08/02/1999 Khan Sultan 35394/97 12/05/00 04/10/00 - 11 500 pounds sterling –11   090,30 Frenc Francs + VAT 28/12/2000 P.G. and J.H. 44787/98 25/09/01 25/12/01 2   000 pounds sterling 12   000 pounds sterling 19/02/2002 and 20/02/2002 Armstrong Mark 48521/99 16/07/02 16/10/02 none none - Chalkley Tony Michael 63831/00 12/06/03 12/09/03 - 4   800 euros [1] 16/02/2004 default interest paid Hewitson James Roberts 50015/99 27/05/03 27/08/03 none   4   800 euros 1 16/02/2004 default interest paid   II.   General measures   The covert surveillance at issue in these cases was not in accordance with the law, as the rules regulating this kind of surveillance at the time (the Home Office Guidelines) were neither legally binding nor publicly accessible. The violation of Article 13, which was found in all cases except in the Hewitson case, was due to the lack of an effective remedy in this respect, since the system of investigation of complaints did not meet the requisite standards of protection against the abuse of authority.   Following the finding of violations in the Govell case, on 22 February 1999, the relevant part of the Police Act 1997 (Part III) came into force, along with the Code of Practice on Intrusive Surveillance Work, explaining in more detail how the provisions of the legislation should be carried out. On 25 September 2000, the relevant part of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Part II) also came into force. The installation of covert listening devices in residential premises and places of work is now regulated by these two statutory instruments and the Code of Practice, a system which is both legally binding and publicly accessible.   As regards the violation of Article 13 of the Convention, Part IV of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides for the independent oversight of police powers by a Chief Surveillance Commissioner and establishes an independent tribunal to consider complaints concerning the use of surveillance powers.   In addition, following the entry into force of the Human Rights Act in 2000, violations of the Convention may be considered unlawful under United Kingdom law and challenged before domestic courts.   The Government of the United Kingdom considers that the measures adopted prevent new, similar violations of the Convention to those found in the present cases. The Government accordingly considers that the United Kingdom has complied with its obligations under former Article 32, paragraph 4, and Article 46 of the Convention.   [1] To be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable on the date of payment.