CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 juin 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. June 1997 Halford v. the United Kingdom - 20605/92 Judgment 25.6.1997 Article 8 Interception of telephone calls made on internal telecommunications system operated by police and on public network: violation; no violation Article 13 Lack of regulation by domestic law: 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.   Office telephones 1.   Applicability Telephone calls made from business premises may be covered by notions of "private life" and "correspondence" - applicant had reasonable expectation of privacy. Conclusion : Article 8 applicable (unanimously). 2.   Existence of interference Reasonable likelihood that calls intercepted by Merseyside police with primary aim of gathering material to assist in defence of discrimination proceedings - "interference by public authority". 3.   Whether interference was "in accordance with the law" To protect against arbitrary interference, domestic law must be sufficiently clear to give adequate indication of when authorities empowered to resort to secret measures of surveillance or interception of communications - no regulation by domestic law of interceptions of calls on internal communications systems operated by public authorities. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). B.   Home telephone 1.   Applicability Conclusion : Article 8 applicable (unanimously). 2.   Existence of interference Since complaint (that calls from home telephone were intercepted) concerns specific measures of interception unauthorised by law, Court must be satisfied there was reasonable likelihood that some such measure applied to applicant - evidence insufficient - cases of Klass and Others v. Germany and Malone v. the United Kingdom distinguished. Conclusion: no violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Office telephones No effective remedy since no regulation by domestic law of interceptions of telephone calls on internal communications systems operated by public authorities. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). B.   Home telephone Evidence not sufficient to found arguable claim. Conclusion : no violation (eight votes to one). III.   ARTICLES 10 AND 14 OF THE CONVENTION Allegations tantamount to restatements of complaints under Article 8. Conclusion : not necessary to examine complaints (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: compensation awarded. B.   Pecuniary damage: claim allowed in part. C.   Costs and expenses: partial reimbursement. 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