CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 avril 2005

.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. 74 April 2005 Iordachi and Others v. Moldova (dec.) - 25198/02 Decision 5.4.2005 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Domestic surveillance legislation alleged to place a human rights non-governmental organisation under the risk of having their telephones tapped: admissible   The applicants are members of a human rights non-governmental organisation which was created for the purpose of assisting persons to introduce applications with the Court. They claim that after the coming to power of the Communist Party, the number of human rights violations increased considerably in the country. As a result of their activity, which has led to the finding by the Court of a violation in a number of cases, they maintain to run a serious risk of having their telephones tapped. Although they had not been victims of any specific interception of their communications, the applicants complain that domestic legislation does not contain sufficient guarantees to prevent abuses against the right to freedom of correspondence. Moreover, as the decision of the investigating authority regarding telephone tapping is never communicated to the person concerned, they complain of a lack of an effective remedy. Admissible under Articles 8 and 13. The Government’s objections: (i) non-exhaustion: as the complaints referred to the state of a law, the Court was not convinced that the remedies advanced by the Government could have provided redress to the applicants. Only Parliament or the Constitutional Court, to which individuals did not have direct access, could make amendments to laws. Hence, the application could not be dismissed on the grounds of this objection; (ii) victim status: this question was joined to the merits of the case; (iii) abuse of the right of petition: the statements made by the applicants and the language used by them in the proceedings before the Court had not amounted to an abuse of the right of petition. Accordingly, this objection was also dismissed.   © 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