CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 octobre 2007

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 101 October 2007 Van Vondel v. the Netherlands - 38258/03 Judgment 25.10.2007 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Respect for private life Police providing, in absence of regulatory framework, technical assistance to an individual who wished to record his conversations with the applicant: violation Facts : In 2002 the applicant, a former police officer, was convicted of having committed perjury before a general parliamentary inquiry and of attempting to intimidate a potential witness - his former informer. The courts relied on recordings of telephone conversations between them which the informer had made on his own initiative and with the aid of devices provided by the police. Law : The obtaining by the police – for the purposes of an officially commissioned fact-finding inquiry – of recordings of conversations between the applicant and his informer had constituted an interference with the applicant’s private life and/or correspondence which was imputable to a public authority. Although the recordings of the applicant’s conversations had been made by the informer on a voluntary basis and for his own purposes, the equipment had been provided by the authorities, who on at least one occasion had given him specific instructions as to what information should be obtained from the applicant. In these circumstances, the authorities had made a crucial contribution to executing the scheme. The Court was not persuaded that it was ultimately the informer who had been in control of events. The Government had not shown that the interference at issue had had any legal basis. Furthermore, as the investigation had been a fact‑finding inquiry, the police had not been allowed to have recourse to any investigative powers such as, for instance, the covert recording of conversations. The Court understood that for practical reasons a witness who feared that his credibility had been damaged might need technical assistance from the authorities in order to substantiate his version of events. However, it was unacceptable for the provision of such assistance by the authorities not to have been governed by rules aimed at providing legal guarantees against arbitrary acts. The applicant had been deprived of the minimum degree of protection to which he was entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society. The interference had therefore not been “in accordance with the law”. Conclusion : violation (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