CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 août 1998

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .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. August 1998 Lambert v. France - 23618/94 Judgment 24.8.1998 Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Respect for private life Judgment whereby Court of Cassation refused a person locus standi to complain of interception of some of his telephone conversations, on the ground that it was a third party’s line that had been tapped: violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Whether there had been any interference Interception of telephone conversations had amounted to “interference by a public authority”, within the meaning of Article 8 § 2, with the exercise of a right secured to the applicant in paragraph 1 of that Article – of little importance that the telephone tapping in question had been carried out on line of a third party. B.   Justification for the interference 1.   Had interference been “in accordance with the law”? (a)   Whether there had been a statutory basis in French law Telephone tapping in question had been ordered on basis of Articles 100 et seq. of Code of Criminal Procedure. (b)   Quality of the law Accessibility: not in question in the instant case. Foreseeability: Law of 10 July 1991 on confidentiality of telecommunications messages laid down clear, detailed rules and specified with sufficient clarity the scope and manner of exercise of relevant discretion conferred on public authorities. 2.   Purpose and necessity of interference Interference had been designed to establish truth in connection with criminal proceedings and therefore to prevent disorder. As to necessity for it, Court of Cassation had held that Indictment Division had been wrong to examine objections of invalidity raised by applicant as telephone line being monitored had not been his own – admittedly, applicant had been able to avail himself of a remedy in the Indictment Division, but Court of Cassation had criticised Indictment   Division for having examined merits of applicant’s application – that reasoning could lead to a very large number of people being deprived of protection of the law laying down arrangements for judicial supervision, namely all those who had conversations on a telephone line other than their own – protective machinery would be rendered largely devoid of substance – applicant had therefore not had available to him the “effective control” to which citizens were entitled under the rule of law and which would have been capable of restricting interference in question to what had been “necessary in a democratic society”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Unnecessary to examine complaint (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Non-pecuniary damage: undeniable non-pecuniary damage – claim allowed in part. Costs and expenses: reimbursed. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to applicant (unanimously).   © 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