DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE RUSSO

I disagree with the Court ’ s conclusion that there was no violation of Article 13 of the Convention (art. 13) in relation to the applicant ’ s complaint that calls made from her home telephone were intercepted.

Although I agree that no interference with her Article 8 rights (art. 8) was established with regard to her home telephone, I observe that her complaint in this connection was declared admissible by the Commission and examined by the Commission and the Court. In my view, it cannot therefore be said that she did not have an "arguable" claim of a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) in respect of her home telephone (see, fo r example, the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 30, para. 79).

It follows that Ms Halford was entitled to an effective remedy at national level in respect of this complaint. I am not satisfied that she was provided with one.

[1] The cas e is numbered 73/1996/692/884. The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second numb er). The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[2] Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) (1 October 1994) and thereafter only to cases concerning States no t bound by that Protocol (P9). They correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as amended several times subsequently.

[3] For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.