Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF KRUSLIN AGAINST FRANCE

Doc ref: 11801/85 • ECHR ID: 001-55546

Document date: June 15, 1992

Inbound citations: 2
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

CASE OF KRUSLIN AGAINST FRANCE

Doc ref: 11801/85 • ECHR ID: 001-55546

Document date: June 15, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54

(art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the

Convention"),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human

Rights in the Kruslin case delivered on 24 April 1990 and

transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;

Recalling that the case originated in an application against

France lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on

16 October 1985 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by

Mr Jean Kruslin, a French national, who complained of telephone

tapping carried out during a criminal procedure instituted

against him;

Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the

Commission on 16 March 1989;

Whereas in its judgment of 24 April 1990 the Court

unanimously:

- held that there had been a violation of Article 8

(art. 8) of the Convention;

- held that the judgment in itself constituted

sufficient just satisfaction as to the alleged damage;

- held that the respondent state was to pay the

applicant 20 000 French francs in respect of costs and

expenses;

- dismissed the remainder of the claims under

Article 50 (art. 50);

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of

Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of

the Convention;

Having invited the Government of France to inform it of the

measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of

24 April 1990, having regard to its obligation under Article 53

(art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;

Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee

of Ministers, the Government of France gave the Committee

information about the measures taken in consequence of the

judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this

resolution;

Having satisfied itself that the Government of France

has paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment,

Declares, after having taken note of the information

supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its

functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this

case.

Appendix to Resolution DH(92)41

Information provided by the Government of France

during the examination of the Kruslin case

by the Committee of Ministers

The act of 10 July 1991 concerning the secrecy of

telecommunications, which came into force on 1 October 1991,

added an Article 100 to the Code of Criminal Procedure relating

to interceptions ordered by the judiciary.

Under Article 100-1 the investigating judge may, if the

apposite penalty is equal or superior to two years imprisonment

and when the investigation requires it, order the interception,

recording and transcription of telecommunications. The decision

to intercept, which must be taken in writing, is not of a

judicial nature and cannot be appealed. Article 100-1 specifies

that this decision must contain all elements permitting

identification of the line to be intercepted and state the

offence which justifies recourse to interception. In addition

it must specify its duration which Article 100-2 sets for a

maximum period of four months, renewable only accordingly to the

same conditions.

Article 100-4 provides that each interception and recording

operation must be mentioned on a record which states the day and

time when it began and when it finished. The transcription of

a communication which is of evidential value must also be

recorded in accordance with Article 100-5. This record becomes

part of the file.

Article 100-6 provides that the recordings will be destroyed

on the initiative of the prosecution after expiry of the time

limit for bringing a prosecution and that such destruction be

recorded.

Finally, under the terms of Article 100-7, no telephone line

to a lawyer's office or his home may be intercepted without the

President of the Bar having been previously informed by the

investigating judge.

The sum awarded to the applicant by the Court was paid on

30 August 1991.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant