CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 avril 2002

.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 41 April 2002 Prado Bugallo v. Spain (dec.) - 58496/00 Decision 16.4.2002 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Legal basis for telephone tapping in the context of criminal proceedings: admissible The applicant is an international tobacco trader and was at the head of a vast financial concern comprising a number of import-export companies. The central investigating judge of the Audiencia Nacional started a judicial investigation into drug-trafficking during the course of which he made several orders for the monitoring of various telephones belonging to or used by the applicant and his assistants in Spain. The applicant was arrested by the police and committed for trial on charges of drug-trafficking, smuggling, commission of monetary offences, forgery of public documents and giving bribes. The applicant applied, inter alia , for the evidence obtained by the telephone monitoring devices to be declared inadmissible. He was found guilty, notably on the basis of the police recordings of monitored telephone conversations, his application to have that evidence excluded having failed. In his appeal on points of law, the applicant alleged among other things that the monitoring during the judicial and police investigations had infringed his right to confidential communications. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. It referred to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and held that the interference had been justified – as large-scale drug-trafficking was a serious offence – and was lawful. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s amparo appeal. Admissible under Article 8.   © 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