CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 novembre 1993

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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. November 1993 A. v. France - 14838/89 Judgment 23.11.1993 Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Recording of a telephone conversation effected clandestinely by a private citizen with the assistance of a high-ranking police officer: 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.   Government's preliminary objections 1.   Whether the application was out of time Filing of appeal to the Court of Cassation against second judgment of the Indictment Division of the Court of Appeal: not a futile step and therefore had the effect at the very least of postponing the beginning of the six-month period. Conclusion : dismissed (unanimously). 2.   Failure to exhaust domestic remedies Civil action for compensation in the ordinary courts and action for damages in respect of State's liability brought in the administrative courts: would have been directed essentially to the same end as the criminal complaint with application to join proceedings as civil party and would in any case not have offered better chances of success. Conclusion : dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of the complaint 1.   Whether there was an interference Undertaking complained of depended on a private citizen and a police officer working together, and they could hardly be dissociated from each other - the former played decisive role in conceiving and putting into effect the plan - the latter was an official of the "public authority" and made a crucial contribution to the execution of the scheme - he did not inform his superiors of it and had not sought prior authorisation from an investigating judge, but he was acting in the performance of his duties as a high-ranking police officer - it followed that the public authorities were involved to such an extent that the State's responsibility under the Convention was engaged - in any event recording represented interference in respect of which applicant was entitled to the protection of the French legal system. Interference undoubtedly concerned applicant's right to respect for her "correspondence" - not necessary to consider whether it also affected her "private life". 2.   Whether the interference was justified Contested recording had no basis in domestic law - unnecessary to rule on compliance with the other requirements of paragraph 2 of Article 8. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: any non-pecuniary damage sustained: sufficient just satisfaction afforded by Court's judgment. B.   Costs and expenses: costs incurred in the national courts and before the Convention institutions: reimbursement assessed on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay a specified sum to the 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