Judgment 7286/16

Applicant type natural person
Number of applicants 2
Application no. 7286/16
Date 12/01/2023
Judges Marko Bošnjak, President,
 Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
 Alena Poláčková,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Erik Wennerström,
 Raffaele Sabato
Institution Court
Type Judgment
Outcome Art. 8 Violation
Reason Unlawfull
Type of privacy Informational privacy
Keywords Wire-tapping; quality of law
Facts of the case The case concerns the tapping in 2004, in the course of criminal proceedings concerning the second applicant, of a mobile telephone line for which the subscription was in the name of the first applicant but which according to the authorities was being used by the second applicant. The tapping was authorised by a court warrant and carried out by the relevant police force. The case focuses on the warrant, the involvement of the issuing court and the fairness of the ensuing proceedings before the Constitutional Court, raising questions mainly under Article 35 § 1 (effectiveness and exhaustion of domestic remedies), Article 6 (adversarial trial), Article 8 (private life and correspondence) and Article 13 (effective remedy) of the Convention.  In connection with the applicants’ allegation that the mobile phone line was also used by the first applicant, the application also involves the question of her standing, in particular in relation to the complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.
Analysis The warrant in question has not been made available to the Court. Nevertheless, in the absence of any objection by the Government, the Court takes it as established that the warrant contained no reasoning beyond a reference to the PPS’s request and an offhand finding that, in view of that request, obtaining the necessary evidence by other means was ineffective or impossible. The Court also notes that the PPS’s request for the warrant was not made available to it either. As to any possibility of the contents of that request making up for the lack of reasoning of the warrant if they were to be read together, the Court notes that no such joint reading had been proposed and the PPS itself concluded that the warrant lacked reasoning and could therefore not be used in evidence.
Other Article violation?Violation 13 ECHR, no violation 6 ECHR
Damage awarded (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) each, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros) jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;
Documents Judgment