CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 novembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 102 November 2007 Zagaria v. Italy - 58295/00 Judgment 27.11.2007 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-3-c Defence through legal assistance Interception of a private telephone conversation between an accused taking part in a hearing by videoconference and his lawyer: violation   Facts : A law enacted in Italy in 1998 authorises defendants, in certain cases, to follow their trial at a distance, over a video link between the place of detention and the court room where the proceedings are being held. The accused can confer with his counsel in the courtroom over a special telephone line designed to guarantee the confidentiality of conversations between defendants and their lawyers. In the applicant’s case, during an Assize Court hearing the supervisor in the videoconference room had listened to and transcribed the telephone conversation between the applicant and his lawyer; the lawyer was in the hearing room, while the applicant followed the proceedings by videoconference from his place of detention. The applicant’s lawyer learnt of the interception almost eleven months later. The proceedings brought against the supervisor who made the transcription were discontinued. As a result no disciplinary action was taken. Better sound-proofed telephone booths were installed in prisons. The applicant complained to the Strasbourg Court that he had not been able to communicate with his lawyer in private. Law : Articles 6 § 3 (c) and 6 § 1 taken together – In eavesdropping on the applicant’s telephone conversation with his lawyer, the supervisor had breached the confidentiality principle enshrined in Italian law. No valid justification for such conduct had been given by the Government, who had simply submitted that the eavesdropping had been “accidental”. That being so, the Court could not find that the eavesdropping and the transcription of the conversation in a confidential report addressed to the prison management had been “absolutely necessary”. The Court pointed out that the possibility for a defendant to give confidential instructions to his counsel at the time when his case was being discussed and evidence adduced before the trial court was an essential feature of a fair trial. The intercepted conversation did not appear to have any direct bearing on the merits of the charges or the strategy of the defence and the applicant and his counsel had not found out about it until over ten months later, but at that time the proceedings against the applicant were still pending. Considering the State’s failure to take firm measures against the supervisor, the criminal charges against whom had been dropped and against whom no disciplinary action had been taken, the applicant had no guarantee that it had not happened on other occasions. It was not unreasonable, therefore, for the applicant to fear that other conversations might be intercepted, which might have made him reluctant to discuss issues likely to be of use to the prosecution. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – Non-pecuniary damage – finding of a violation sufficient. See also Marcello Viola v. Italy judgment, no.   45106/04, 5   October 2006, Information Note no. 90.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes