CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 juin 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   454 09.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KVASNICA v. SLOVAKIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Kvasnica v. Slovakia (application no. 72094/01). The case concerned the interception of Mr Kvasnica’s professional telephone communications in the context of a criminal investigation into the financial activities of a group of companies for which he acted as legal representative.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the interception of telephone calls of the applicant not having been carried out in compliance with the necessary requirements.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the applicant sought the finding by the Court of a breach of his right under Article 8, which he considered appropriate satisfaction. ( The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Roman Kvasnica, a practising member of the Slovak Bar Association, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Piešťany (Slovakia). In 1999 the Minister of the Interior set up a team of investigators to probe into large-scale organised criminal activities of a financial nature supposedly related to one in a group of companies for which Mr Kvasnica acted as legal representative between August 1999 and March 2001.   The investigators tapped Mr Kvasnica’s professional mobile after having obtained a judicial authorisation. He learned about it for the first time in November 2000; in 2001, records of his conversations were already leaked to various interested groups, including politicians and journalists. In 2002, it was brought to his knowledge that the exact records of his conversation with third persons, which had been made by the financial police, were freely accessible on the internet. These records included conversation with his colleagues, clients, and friends, and were manipulated to include statements which Mr Kvasnica and the other persons involved had not made.   In January 2001 Mr Kvasnica complained of the interception of his conversations to the Ministry of Interior and requested that an investigation into it be carried out. The director of the special financial and criminal police also lodged a criminal complaint in connection with the interception as he considered that it had been unlawful because it had not been based on specific suspicion against Mr Kvasnica and no concrete purpose for it had been indicated.   The applicant was questioned in relation with his complaint in June 2001, but was not informed of the results of the investigation. The complaint by the police director was dismissed by the Inspection Service in September 2001 with a decision – never communicated to the applicant – noting that, as a judge had authorised the interception, it was not possible to question it.   According to Mr Kvasnica, he lodged some ten criminal complaints between 2001 and 2003 about the interception of his telephone conversations and the mishandling of their recordings, but all his complaints were rejected without an examination of the facts.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 July 2001 and declared partly admissible on 26 September 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and Lawrence Early , Section Registrar ,   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article   8, Mr   Kvasnica complained about the interception of his telephone calls.   Decision of the Court   The Court first recalled that telephone conversations were covered by the notions of “private life” and “correspondence” within the meaning of Article 8. It then observed that the interception had been ordered on the basis of a law, the Police Corps Act of 1993, in order to prevent crime by establishing facts in the context of an investigation into suspected large-scale organised criminal activities of a financial nature. Given that the relevant provisions of that Act had been replaced shortly after the events at stake by new legislation offering a broader scope of guarantees, the Court found it unnecessary to examine separately the applicant’s argument challenging the quality of the law in force at the relevant time.   As regards the application of that law, however, the Government had not made available the relevant documents concerning the system of control of telephone tapping which existed at the time as, under domestic legislation, they were classified. The Court, therefore, could not be satisfied that the interception had been ordered in accordance with the law.   In addition, it had not been shown that the necessary guarantees had in practice been effectively fulfilled as regards, in particular, the suspicion against the applicant, the reason for the order authorising interception, as well as the duration and the availability of judicial control over the interception on a continuous basis.   The Court concluded that the procedure for ordering and supervising the implementation of the interception of the applicant’s telephone had not been fully compliant with the requirements of the relevant law; nor had it been put into practice so as to keep the interference with his private life and correspondence to what had been indispensible for the purposes of the investigation. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 8.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.