CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 28 février 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)15 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Halford against United Kingdom   (Application No. 20605/92, judgment of 25 June 1997)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 54 and new Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provide that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the final judgment in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee on 25 June 1997;   Recalling that the violations found by the Court in this case concern illegal interferences with telephone calls made on the applicant's office telephone and the lack of effective remedies (violations of Articles 8 and 13) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the United Kingdom's obligation under former Article 53 and new Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, which are applicable by decision of the Committee of Ministers to cases under former Article 54;   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing, similar violations;   Having regard to interim Resolution DH (99) 725 adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 1999, at its 688th meeting in which it indicated that it had provisionally exercised its functions under former Article 54 of the convention in the light of the information provided at the date by the Government of the respondent state confirming the payment of just satisfaction within the deadlines set and indicating the provisional general measures taken, pending the adoption of new legislation ;   Having examined the further measures taken by the respondent state, the details of which appear in the Appendix;     Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 810th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (October 2002),   D eclares that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case, and   DECIDES to close its examination. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)15   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Halford against United Kingdom     Introductory case summary   The case relates to a violation of the applicant's right to respect for her privacy on account of the interception, between 1990 and 1992, of telephone calls she had made on her office telephones, which were linked to internal telecommunications systems operated by public authorities.   The Court found that such interference was illegal because at that time the domestic law did not regulate the interception of telephone calls made on this kind of telecommunications system. Furthermore, due to the lack of any regulation in this matter, no effective remedy had been available to the applicant to complain about the interception of her telephone calls (violation of Articles 8 and 13).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage Costs and expenses TOTAL 10   600 pounds sterling 25 000 pounds sterling + VAT 35 600 pounds sterling + VAT Paid on 9/07/1997   b) Individual measures   The United Kingdom authorities officially confirmed that all intercept material at issue in this case had been destroyed.   II.   General measures   Legislation governing the regulation of interception on private telecommunication networks has been enacted in the form of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), which received Royal Assent on 28   July 2000. The relevant part of the Act, Part I of Chapter I (interception provisions), came into force on 2   October 2000. The purpose of this part of the Act is to prohibit the interception of communications on public and private networks, and then carve out from that overall prohibition certain limited circumstances whereby interception may lawfully be carried out on such networks.   Section 1(2) of the Act makes it a criminal offence intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a private telecommunications system, as defined in section 2 (1). The penalties available for unlawful interception on a private network are either a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years in a Crown Court, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum of 5000 £ in a Magistrates Court (Section 1(7)).   Where a communication is intercepted in the course of its transmission by means of a private telecommunication system, but the person making the interception is (or has the consent of), the person controlling the system, as happened in the present case, no criminal liability arises (Section 1(2)(b) read with Section 1 (6)). However, in such circumstances, Section 1(3) of the Act creates a new civil liability. The sender, the recipient, or the intended recipient of a communication intercepted in these circumstances may sue the person who has the right to control the operation or the use of the telecommunication system in question. The latter will be liable unless he can show that he acted with lawful authority (as defined in Section   1(5)).   Where interception on a private network is carried out in accordance with a warrant from the Secretary of State, the interception will have lawful authority by virtue of Section 1(5)(b). An individual who wishes to complain about such an interception may seek redress from the newly created Investigatory Powers Tribunal (Section 65, paragraph 2b).   Furthermore, since the entry into force of the Human Rights Act on 2 October 2000, any person who believes that a public authority has breached his Convention rights may bring proceedings against the authority concerned under Section 7 (1) (a) of the Act. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal will be the relevant tribunal in which to bring any such proceedings against the intelligence services concerning, inter alia , an interception of communications.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28 February 2007 at the 987th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies