CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 juin 2000

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7A5A2521 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     444   20.6.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF FOXLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM     In a judgment [1] 1 notified in writing on 20 June 2000 in the case of Foxley v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 6,000 pounds sterling for costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   The applicant, Gordon Foxley, a British national, was born in 1924. At the time of the introduction of his application he was serving a prison sentence.   The applicant was convicted in 1993 of twelve counts of corruption and given a four-year prison sentence. The offences were committed when he was employed as an ammunitions procurement officer in the Ministry of Defence. The court made a confiscation order against him in the amount of GBP 1,503,301.80. The applicant defaulted in payment. A receiver was eventually appointed to realise the applicant’s property including any property held by third parties. The person appointed as receiver was subsequently appointed by the court the applicant’s trustee in bankruptcy, following an application by the Ministry of Defence to have the applicant declared bankrupt. On 27 September 1996 a County Court judge, on application by the trustee in bankruptcy, made a redirection order under Section 371 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to the effect that for a period of three months beginning 27 September 1996 all postal packets addressed to the applicant were to be re-directed to the trustee in bankruptcy’ s address.   Between 27 September 1996 and 10 January 1997 a total of seventy-one letters addressed to the applicant were redirected to the trustee in bankruptcy, including letters from the applicant’s legal advisers in connection with the receivership proceeding and his application to the European Commission of Human Rights. The trustee in bankruptcy read and made copies of the applicant’s correspondence with his legal advisers for the file before forwarding them to the applicant.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 14   September 1995.   The case was transmitted to a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998 and declared partly admissible on 12 October 1999. Judgment was given by the Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Nicolas Bratza (British), Judges ,   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant essentially complained that his right to respect for his correspondence guaranteed under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached.   Decision of the Court   Article 8 of the Convention   The Court found that there had been an interference with the applicant’s correspondence, including correspondence with his legal advisers over the period 27 September 1996 to 18   January 1997. This had not been disputed by the Government.   The Court noted that the redirection order obtained by the trustee in bankruptcy under the Insolvency Act 1986 expired on 27 December 1996. However, after that date the trustee in bankruptcy opened letters addressed to the applicant and retained copies of some of them. In the Court’s opinion, the trustee in bankruptcy must be taken to have known that the order for which she herself had applied no longer provided her with a legal basis to interfere with the applicant’s correspondence after 27 December 1996. Accordingly the interference after the expiry of the validity of the redirection order was not in accordance with the law.   For that reason the Court found that there had been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention as regards the interference with the applicant’s correspondence in the period after 27 December 1996.   As to the interception of the applicant’s correspondence during the period of validity of the redirection order, the Court observed that the measure pursued a legitimate aim, namely to allow the trustee in bankruptcy to identify and secure the applicant's assets with a view to their distribution to his creditors. The applicant did not contest this.   However, the Court was not persuaded that the measures taken during this period with respect to the applicant’s correspondence with his legal advisers could be said to be “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 8. The Court recalled that the lawyer-client relationship is, in principle, privileged and correspondence in that context, whatever its purpose, concerns matters of a private and confidential nature. In the instant case, the trustee in bankruptcy opened and read correspondence from the applicant’s legal advisers. Copies were made and filed before being forwarded to the applicant. At no stage did the Government argue that the privileged channel was being abused. The Court also had regard to the fact that the trustee in bankruptcy was also the receiver for the purposes of the receivership proceedings against the applicant. This consideration made it even more compelling for her to forward, unread, the applicant’s correspondence with his legal advisers relating to those proceedings.   For the above reasons, the Court concluded that there was no pressing social need for the opening, reading and copying to file of the applicant’s correspondence with his legal advisers. Accordingly, the interference was not necessary in a democratic society and on that account there had been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.   Having regard to that finding, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) that the interference with his legally privileged correspondence prejudiced the fairness of the receivership proceedings instituted against him.   Article 41 of the Convention   The Court awarded the applicant, for costs and expenses, the sum of GBP 6,000 inclusive of VAT and minus the amount received from the Council of Europe by way of legal aid.   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   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. 1 Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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.