CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 octobre 2008

.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 } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB49F962E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s775F4DB5 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s678DE21D { width:20.58%; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s23FB154F { width:31.06%; 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 } .s983DC68F { width:24.82%; 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 } .sFD9AF0CC { width:23.54%; 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 } .s17BC294 { width:20.58%; 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 } .s82C7B446 { width:31.06%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B2702BC { width:24.82%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4FA5F9E3 { width:23.54%; 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 } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sDDB50A14 { color:#ff0000 } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .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(2008)81 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Prado Bugallo against Spain   (Application No. 58496/00, judgment of 18 February 2003, final on 18 May 2003)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns telephone tapping, in particular insufficient safeguards in domestic law in this field (violation of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Spain’s obligation under 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;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   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;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), 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(2008)81   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Prado Bugallo against Spain     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the interception of the applicant's telephone communication, with judicial authorisation, at various time in 1990 and 1991, following a criminal investigation by the police concerning drug trafficking (violation of Article 8).   The European Court considered in particular that the legislation in force at the material time did not precisely define the nature of the offences which could give rise to telephone tapping, the conditions for drawing up formal reports of the intercepted conversations or the use and erasure of recordings.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - - 7   000 EUR 7   000 EUR Paid on 18/08/2003   b) Individual measures   The recordings in question are kept by the Criminal Chamber of the Audiencia Nacional as the trial court and no-one can have access to them.     II.   General measures   In addition to the amendments already adopted following the judgment of the European Court in the Valenzuela Contreras case, in particular the introduction of the Implementing Act No. 4/1988 of 25/05/1988, which governs telephone monitoring in Spain, and the interpretation of this Act by the Supreme Court since its judgment of 18/06/1992 (Resolution DH(99)127), the Spanish authorities have provided examples of recent case-law concerning telephone monitoring. This case-law is extensive and exhaustive, and covers the conditions of telephone monitoring as well as its control by the courts. Furthermore, in a recent admissibility decision (decision on application No. 17060/02, Coban against Spain ), the European Court considered that Article 579 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by Act No. 4/1988 and completed by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court case-law, has remedied the gaps in the legislation and provides adequate safeguards. As a consequence, it declared the application inadmissible.   The judgment of the European Court was published in Spanish in the Official Journal of the Ministry of Justice No. 1954 of 01/12/2003 and sent out to the authorities concerned.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken will prevent new, similar violations and that Spain has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.     [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 October 2008 at the 1035th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies