CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 17 juillet 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA3022B31 { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:17.83pt; font-family:serif } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Note1]     395   17.7.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CRAXI v. ITALY (no. 1)   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Craxi v. Italy (no. 1) (application no. 25337/94). The Court held   by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in that the respondent State had failed to provide safe custody of the transcripts of telephone conversations and to subsequently carry out an effective investigation as to how those private communications were released into the public domain; and   unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8 of the Convention on account of the failure of the Italian authorities to comply with the statutory procedures before the intercepted telephone conversations were read out at a court hearing.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each of the applicant’s heirs 2,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Benedetto Craxi, was an Italian national born in 1934. He was General Secretary of the Italian Socialist Party ( PSI ) from 1976 to 1993 and Prime Minister of Italy from 1983 to 1987. He lived in Hammamet (Tunisia) from 1994 until his death on 19   January 2000. His widow, daughter and son subsequently informed the Court that they wished to continue the proceedings.   Between January and May 1994 Mr Craxi was served with numerous notices of prosecution during the so-called “clean hands” campaign in Italy. He was charged with corruption, dishonest receipt of money, concealment of dishonest gain and illegal financing of political parties. He did not appear at trial. In judgments of 29 July and 7 December 1994 he was sentenced to prison in absentia . The public prosecutor obtained an order for Mr   Craxi’s telephone calls between Italy and his home to be intercepted. A specialist branch of the Italian police intercepted his calls between 20 July and 3 October 1995.   At a hearing on 29 September 1995 in the Metropolitana Milanese trial, the public prosecutor filed the transcripts of the intercepted telephone conversations with the court registry and asked that they be admitted in evidence against Mr Craxi. The prosecution subsequently read out a number of extracts in court. The contents of certain telephone conversations and the names of the people speaking were subsequently published in the press. Ultimately, the District Court decided not to use the information yielded by the intercepted telephone conversations.   On 16 April 1996 Mr Craxi was sentenced to eight years and three months’ imprisonment and to a fine of 150 million Italian lire (about 77,468 euros). On 24 July 1998 the Milan Court of Appeal reduced his prison sentence to four years and six months.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 16 June 1994 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 7 December 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that the release into the public domain of intercepted telephone conversations of a private nature had breached Articles 8 (right to respect for private life), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on restrictions of use of rights) of the Convention. He complained in particular of the public prosecutor’s decision to deposit the transcripts in the court registry.   Decision of the Court   Article 8 of the Convention   The European Court of Human Rights observed that some of the conversations published in the press had been of a strictly private nature and had had little or no connection with the criminal charges brought against the applicant. In the Court’s view, there had been no pressing social need to publish them. In ascertaining whether the interference complained of could be attributed to the State and therefore engage Italy’s responsibility before the Convention institutions, the Court noted that private newspapers had published the extracts and the applicant had not suggested that those newspapers might in some way be under the control of the public authorities.   The Court concluded that the divulging of the conversations through the press had not been a direct consequence of any act by the public prosecutor, but had probably been the result of a malfunctioning of the registry or the press obtaining information from one of the parties to the proceedings or from their lawyers. It considered that the onus was on the Government to provide a plausible explanation as to how they had reached the media and that they had not done so. Nor had there been an inquiry into the circumstances in which journalists had had access to the transcripts. The Government had not fulfilled its obligation to secure Mr Craxi’s right to respect for his private life.   The Court considered, with regard to the reading out of the intercepted telephone conversations at the hearing of 29 September 1995, that the Italian authorities had failed to follow the statutory procedures. No preliminary hearing had been held in which the parties and the judge could have excluded the parts of the intercepted conversations that were not relevant to the judicial proceedings and thus provided a substantial safeguard for the right secured by Article 8. The interference had not therefore been in accordance with the law. The Milan District Court’s interpretation of the domestic provisions had amounted to a recognition of the lack of safeguards to protect the rights secured by Article 8 of the Convention. That interpretation raised serious concerns about the State’s compliance with its obligation to endorse the effective protection of those rights.   The Court considered it unnecessary to examine the complaints raised under Articles 14 and 18.   Judge Zagrebelsky expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   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: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (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. [Note1]   Press release for individual judgments . To be saved in PowerDocs as follows: (1) Document Name: case name [+   date] + language (e.g. Sliven 31012003E or C.T. v. Finland 31012003E ), (2)   Document type: PR, (3) Group: PRESS, (4)   Subject: JCH or JGC . When you have completed your document, run the “CleanUpMyDocumentToBePublished” macro to remove all comments or remove them manually.