CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 juillet 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. July 1998 Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain - 27671/95 Judgment 30.7.1998 Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Respect for private life Monitoring of telephone line in connection with criminal proceedings against subscriber: violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION Compass of case delimited by Commission’s decision on admissibility – Court had no jurisdiction to revive issues declared inadmissible. Conclusion: no jurisdiction (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability Telephone calls from a person’s home came within notions of “private life” and “correspondence” referred to in Article 8 § 1 – point not disputed. B.   Compliance 1.   General principles Recapitulation of Court’s case-law. 2.   Application of those principles in instant case (a)   Whether there had been an interference Tapping of applicant’s telephone line constituted “interference by a public authority” in exercise of right to respect for his private life and correspondence – point not disputed. (b)   Was the interference justified? (i)   Was the interference “in accordance with the law”? Not contested that there was legal basis in Spanish law. No doubt in instant case that law was accessible.   Foreseeability of law: telephone tappings constituted serious interference with right to respect for private life and correspondence – had to be based on an especially precise “law”. In sphere of monitoring telephone communications guarantees stating extent of authorities’ discretion and manner in which it was to be exercised had to be set out in detail in domestic law in order for it to have binding force which circumscribed judges’ discretion in application of such measures – Spanish law did not indicate with sufficient certainty at material time extent of authorities’ discretion in domain concerned or way in which it was to be exercised – evolution in legislation and case-law on subject had not begun until after order to monitor applicant’s telephone line had been made. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). (ii)   Aim of the interference and the need for it Unnecessary to consider that issue. III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A. Pecuniary damage: applicant unable to prove causal link between tapping of his telephone and alleged damage – claim dismissed. B. Costs and expenses: claim allowed in full. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sum in respect of costs and expenses (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