Human rights rulings: some decisions of the European Commission
01 January 1991
Human rights rulings: some decisions of the European Commission
of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights
artdoc October=1991
Telephone tapping: In a judgment given in April 1990 (Kruslin and
Hurnig v France) the European Court of Human Rights held that the
French system of telephone tapping violated Article 8 of the
Convention (the right to privacy), since French law did not
declare with sufficient clarity the scope and manner of the
exercise of the discretion to authorise telephone tapping. The
Court said that telephone tapping represented a serious
interference with private life and communications and accordingly
had to be based on a law which was particularly precise. It was
essential to have clear, detailed rules on the subject,
especially as the technology is continually becoming more
sophisticated. The categories of people liable to have their
phone tapped by judicial order and the nature of the offences
which might give rise to such an order were nowhere defined.
Nothing obliged a judge to set a limit on the duration of the
tapping. The information from the government on these and other
points showed at best the existence of a practice, but one
lacking the necessary regulatory control in the absence of
legislation or case law.
Restrictions on journalists: The Commission held inadmissible
the complaint of Betty Purcell and others against the government
of Ireland's restrictions on journalists which prohibited them
from broadcasting interviews with members of certain listed
organisations (the complaint alleged that these restrictions
violated Article 10, freedom of expression). However, it found
that Article 10 had been violated by the British government's
temporary injunctions against the Observer, the Guardian and the
Sunday Times to prevent them from publishing extracts from
`Spycatcher'. The cases (Observer and Guardian v UK; Sunday Times
v UK) went to the Court for hearing on 25 June 1991. The
Commission also found a breach of Article 10 in the Irish
government's ban on the provision of information to pregnant
women as to names and addresses of abortion clinics in the UK
(Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman Centre v Ireland).
Detention on remand: Remand prisoners awaiting trial for periods
approaching 3 years were held by the Commission to be victims of
violations of Article 5(3), which guarantees the right to have
a trial within a reasonable period or to be released pending
trial. The case of Clooth v Belgium, in which a murder and arson
suspect had been held for 3 years, was referred to the full court
for hearing on 24 June 1991. In Letellier v France the Court held
on 26 June 1991 that the detention pending trial of a suspect for
2 years and 10 months was a violation of Article 5(3).
Expulsion: In Moustaquin v Belgium the Commission found a
violation of Article 8 (the right to family life) by the Belgian
government's expulsion of a Moroccan national aged 20, who had
committed a number of serious offences, who had lived in Belgium
virtually all his life, spoke no Arabic and knew no-one in
Morocco.
ECHR Press Releases 19-26.6.91; Human Rights News 200(91) 3.6.91;
Council of Europe Human Rights H/Inf (90)2, Information Sheet No.
26.
Statewatch no 4 September/October 1991