CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 26 octobre 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD35C6159 { width:1.54pt; display:inline-block } .s38DD6A04 { width:18.2pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   579   26.10.1999   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASE OF KHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   Tuesday 26 October 1999 at 9 a.m.     The applicant   The case concerns an application (application no. 35394/97) brought by a British national, Sultan Khan, who was born in 1957 and lives in Sheffield.   Summary of the facts   The applicant pleaded guilty to charges of drug-dealing on the basis of evidence obtained by a secret listening device installed by the police. He appealed against his conviction, challenging the admission of the tape recording as evidence against him. The House of Lords found no rule on privacy which could prevent the tape being made, and considered that even if the circumstances of the tape recording had been in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for family and private life), the judge still had a discretion whether to admit the evidence or not. The House of Lords confirmed the judge’s exercise of his discretion to admit the evidence.   Complaints   The applicant complains that the taped evidence was obtained in violation of Article   8 of the Convention because it did not have an adequate basis in domestic law. He also complains that the use of the taped material, obtained in breach of Article 8, made his trial unfair, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention. Finally he claims that his right to an effective remedy under Article 13 has been violated as the domestic court should have taken into account the fact that the evidence was obtained in breach of Article 8.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 1   January 1997. The case was transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998 and declared admissible on 20 April 1999.   The hearing before the Court concerns the merits of the application. Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Judges , Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Substitute Judges ,   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Chris Whomersley , Agent; the Attorney General, Lord Williams of Mostyn ; Jonathan Crow, Counsel; Rowena Collins-Rice , Kristin Jones , Advisers ;   Applicant:   Ben Emmerson , Keir Starmer , Counsel; John Dickinson , Solicitor .       Mr Khan will also attend the hearing.   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   ***   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.