[неофициальный перевод]
ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЙ СУД ПО ПРАВАМ ЧЕЛОВЕКА
СУДЕБНОЕ РЕШЕНИЕ
КРЮСЛЕН (KRUSLIN) ПРОТИВ ФРАНЦИИ
(Страсбург, 24 апреля 1990 года)
(Извлечение)
КРАТКОЕ НЕОФИЦИАЛЬНОЕ ИЗЛОЖЕНИЕ ОБСТОЯТЕЛЬСТВ ДЕЛА
A. Основные факты
В апреле 1985 г. Обвинительная палата апелляционного суда
Тулузы направила дело г-на Крюслена в суд ассизов департамента
Верхняя Гаронна по обвинению его в пособничестве и
подстрекательстве к убийству, краже при отягчающих обстоятельствах
и попытке совершения кражи также при отягчающих обстоятельствах.
Одной из улик явилась запись телефонного разговора, который
заявитель вел по аппарату, принадлежащему третьему лицу. Запись
была сделана по просьбе судьи, участвовавшего в судебном следствии
в Сен-Годенсе в связи с другим делом. Жалоба г-на Крюслена в
Кассационный суд относительно законности прослушивания его
телефонных разговоров была отклонена.
B. Разбирательство в Комиссии по правам человека
Жалоба г-на Крюслена от 16 октября 1985 г. на нарушение
статьи 8 Конвенции была признана Комиссией приемлемой 6 мая
1988 г. В своем докладе от 14 декабря 1988 г. Комиссия выразила
мнение (десятью голосами против двух) о том, что в данном случае
имело место нарушение статьи 8 Конвенции. Дело было передано
Комиссией в Суд 16 марта 1989 г.
ИЗВЛЕЧЕНИЕ ИЗ СУДЕБНОГО РЕШЕНИЯ
ВОПРОСЫ ПРАВА
I. О предполагаемом нарушении статьи 8 Конвенции
25. Г-н Крюслен заявляет, что в данном деле имело место
нарушение статьи 8 Конвенции, которая гласит:
"1. Каждый человек имеет право на уважение его личной и
семейной жизни, неприкосновенности его жилища и тайны
корреспонденции.
2. Не допускается вмешательство со стороны государственных
органов в осуществление этого права, за исключением вмешательства,
предусмотренного законом и необходимого в демократическом обществе
в интересах государственной безопасности и общественного
спокойствия, экономического благосостояния страны, в целях
предотвращения беспорядков или преступлений, для охраны здоровья
или нравственности или защиты прав и свобод других лиц".
Правительство оспаривает это заявление, в то время как
Комиссия согласилась с ним по существу.
26. Хотя прослушивались телефонные разговоры г-на Террье,
полиция попутно записала несколько телефонных разговоров г-на
Крюслена. Один из них имел прямое отношение к возбужденному против
него уголовному делу (см. п. 9 - 10 выше). Таким образом, данное
прослушивание подпадает под определение "вмешательство публичной
власти" в осуществление права заявителя на уважение его "тайны
корреспонденции" и его "личной жизни" (Решение по делу Класс и
другие от 6 сентября 1978 г. Серия A, т. 28, с. 21, п. 41, и
Решение по делу Мэлоуна от 2 августа 1984 г. Серия A, т. 82,
с. 30, п. 64). Правительство это не оспаривало.
Указанное вмешательство властей является нарушением статьи 8
Конвенции, если только оно не "предусмотрено законом", не
преследует одну или несколько правомерных целей, перечисленных в
п. 2 статьи 8, а также не является "необходимым в демократическом
обществе" для достижения таких целей.
A. "Предусмотрено законом"
27. Формула "предусмотрено законом" в смысле статьи 8 п. 2
требует, во-первых, чтобы рассматриваемые действия властей имели
основания во внутреннем законодательстве. Одновременно данное
положение имеет в виду и качество конкретного закона. Она требует,
чтобы закон был доступен для заинтересованного лица, которое могло
бы предвидеть последствия его применения в отношении себя, а
также, чтобы закон не противоречил принципу верховенства права.
1. Наличие законного основания во французском праве
28. Вопрос о том, соблюдено ли в данном деле первое условие,
явился предметом спора в Комиссии и Суде.
Заявитель дал на него отрицательный ответ. Он считает, что
статья 368 Уголовного кодекса в принципе запрещает прослушивание
телефонных разговоров (см. п. 18 выше). Эта норма имеет приоритет
над ст. 81 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса, которая запрещает
прослушивание не в столь категоричной форме и требует от судебного
следователя поступать так, как "предусмотрено законом", то есть в
соответствии inter alia со ст. 368 Уголовного кодекса, когда он
санкционирует оперативные действия, "необходимые для установления
истины" (см. п. 17 выше). Статьи 151 и 152
Уголовно-процессуального кодекса, по мнению заявителя, ничего при
этом не меняют, поскольку судебные следователи не могут
делегировать офицерам судебной полиции полномочия, которыми не
обладают сами. Представитель Комиссии согласился с последним
соображением заявителя.
По мнению Правительства, между статьей 368 Уголовного кодекса
и статьей 81 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса нет никаких
противоречий, особенно если принять во внимание
законоподготовительные материалы к Уголовному кодексу (см. п. 18
выше). Правительство утверждает, что Уголовно-процессуальный
кодекс не содержит исчерпывающего списка оперативных мероприятий,
находящихся в распоряжении судебного следователя. Например, в нем
нет обычных следственных действий такого рода, как
фотографирование, снятие отпечатков пальцев, наружное наблюдение,
выемка, очные ставки свидетелей (см. п. 15 выше). Статью 81
уточняют положения статей 151 и 152, а также сложившаяся судебная
практика (см. п. 17 и 20 - 21 выше). Под понятием "закон" статья 8
п. 2 Конвенции понимает закон, действующий в конкретной правовой
системе. В данном случае - это соединение писаного права (главным
образом статей 81, 151 и 152 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса) и
судебной практики, толкующей нормы первого.
Представитель Комиссии считает, что в континентальных странах,
включая Францию, только "правовой акт общего действия", независимо
от того, принят он Парламентом или другим органом, может иметь
силу "закона" для целей статьи 8 п. 2 Конвенции. Известно, что в
ряде своих прежних Решений Суд высказался в том смысле, что
"понятие "закон" в выражении "предусмотрено законом" включает как
писаное, так и неписаное право" (см. Решение по делу "Санди таймс"
от 26 апреля 1979 г. Серия A, т. 30, с. 30, п. 47, Решение по делу
Даджена от 22 октября 1981 г. Серия A, т. 45, с. 19, п. 44, а
также по делу Чаппела от 30 марта 1989 г. Серия A, т. 152, с. 22,
п. 52). Однако, как заявил представитель Комиссии, в перечисленных
выше судебных делах Суд имел в виду только систему "общего права".
Но эта система радикально отличается от французской системы. В
последней судебная практика является, несомненно, очень важным, но
"вторичным" источником права, в то время как под понятием "закон"
Конвенция понимает "первичный источник права".
29. Подобно Правительству и представителю Комиссии, Суд прежде
всего подчеркивает, что толкование и применение внутреннего
права - это прерогатива национальных властей и особенно судов
(среди прочих Решений см. вышеупомянутое Решение по делу Мэлоуна.
Серия A, т. 82, с. 36, п. 79, и Решение по делу Эриксона от
22 июня 1989 г. Серия A, т. 156, с. 25, п. 62). Поэтому Суд не
должен придерживаться мнения, противоречащего позиции национальных
властей, по поводу того, соответствует или нет прослушивание
телефонных разговоров, осуществляемое по постановлению судебных
следователей, статье 368 Уголовного кодекса. В течение многих лет
национальные суды, и в частности Кассационный суд, рассматривают
статьи 81, 151 и 152 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса в качестве
юридического основания возможности прослушивания телефонных
разговоров офицером судебной полиции на основании предписания
судебного следователя.
Нельзя игнорировать сложившуюся судебную практику. В отношении
статьи 8 п. 2 Конвенции и других аналогичных статей Суд всегда
понимал и понимает термин "закон" в его "сущностном", а не
"формальном" смысле. Он включает как акты более низкой категории,
чем закон (см., в частности, Решение по делу Де Вильде, Оомс и
Версип против Бельгии от 18 июня 1971 г. Серия A, т. 12, с. 45,
п. 93), так и неписаное право. Решения по делам "Санди таймс",
Даджена и Чаппела касались, правда, Соединенного Королевства
Великобритании и Северной Ирландии, однако было бы неправильным
преувеличить различия между странами общего и континентального
права, на что справедливо указало Правительство. Статутное право
значимо и в странах общего права. И наоборот, судебная практика
традиционно играет столь существенную роль в континентальных
странах, что целые направления позитивного права в значительной
степени являются ее результатом. Безусловно, Суд неоднократно
учитывал это (в частности, Решение по делу Мюллер и другие от
24 мая 1988 г. Серия A, т. 133, с. 20, п. 29, Решение по делу
Салабяку от 7 октября 1988 г. Серия A, т. 14 A, с. 16 - 17, п. 29,
Решение по делу АО "Маркт интерн Верлаг" и Клаус Бирман от
20 ноября 1989 г. Серия A, т. 165, с. 18 - 19, п. 30). Если бы Суд
не принимал во внимание судебную практику, то тем самым он
подорвал бы правовую систему континентальных государств почти в
такой же степени, в какой Решение по делу "Санди таймс" от
26 апреля 1979 г. (Серия A, т. 30, с. 30, п. 47) "потрясло бы до
основания" правовую систему Великобритании, если бы Суд исключил
общее право из понятия "закон в смысле Конвенции". В сфере
действия писаного права "законом" является действующий правовой
акт, как он истолкован компетентными судебными органами в свете
новых практических обстоятельств.
Таким образом, вмешательство властей, на которое жалуется
заявитель, имеет законное обоснование во французском праве.
2. "Качество закона"
30. Второе требование, вытекающее из формулы Конвенции
"предусмотрено законом", т.е. требование о доступности закона, не
создает трудностей в настоящем деле.
Однако этого нельзя сказать в отношении третьего требования,
требования о предсказуемости закона, если проанализировать
истинный смысл и суть принимаемых властями мер. Как указал Суд в
Решении по делу Мэлоуна от 2 августа 1984 г., статья 8 п. 2
Конвенции "не ограничивается тем, что отсылает к внутреннему
праву, но говорит также о качестве закона, который должен
соответствовать принципу "верховенства права". Данное положение
"подразумевает..., что во внутреннем праве должны существовать
оградительные меры от произвольного вмешательства властей в
осуществление гражданами своих прав, гарантированных пунктом 1...
Именно там, где исполнительная власть осуществляет свои функции
втайне, становится особенно очевидной опасность произвола...
Несомненно... требования Конвенции, особенно в отношении
предсказуемости закона, не могут быть неизменными в таком
специальном вопросе, как перехват распространяемой по каналам
связи информации для целей полицейского расследования".
- в ходе такого расследования:
"соответствующий закон может создавать некоторые ограничения
для лица. В частности, требование предсказуемости не рассчитано на
то, что лицо может "предвидеть", когда власти планируют
перехватить его информацию, и соответственно скорректировать свое
поведение. Тем не менее формулировки закона должны быть достаточно
ясными и понятными, с тем чтобы предоставить гражданам необходимую
информацию относительно обстоятельств и условий, при которых
публичная власть наделяется полномочиями для скрытого и
потенциально опасного вмешательства в осуществление права
индивидуума на уважение его личной жизни и корреспонденции.
... [В Судебном решении от 25 марта 1983 г. по делу Силвер и
другие Суд] постановил, что "в законе, который оставляет свободу
усмотрения, должны быть указаны его пределы". При этом детали
соблюдения норм и процедур не обязательно должны указываться в
законе (там же, Серия A, т. 61, с. 33 - 34, п. 88 - 89). Степень
детализации, требуемой в этой связи от "закона", зависит от
специфики ситуации... Поскольку применение оперативных мер по
тайному перехвату информации скрыто от заинтересованных лиц, равно
как и от широкой общественности, то если бы "закон" предоставил
исполнительной власти право самостоятельно устанавливать пределы
усмотрения, то он вступил бы в противоречие с принципом
верховенства права".
- о роли судьи:
"она не знает границ. Именно закон конкретно и точно должен
определить пределы и способы осуществления такого рода полномочий
... с тем, чтобы гарантировать лицу надлежащую защиту его прав от
произвольного вмешательства властей" (Серия A, т. 30, с. 30,
п. 47; т. 82, с. 32 - 33, п. 67 - 68).
31. Правительство заявило, что Суд должен проявлять
осторожность и не решать в абстрактной форме, соответствует ли
французское законодательство Конвенции, равно как не выносить
решений de lege ferenda. Поэтому Суду, как считает Правительство,
не надо касаться вопросов, не относящихся к делу г-на Крюслена,
таких как прослушивание телефонных разговоров в связи с небольшими
правонарушениями, или причин отсутствия нормы о том, что лицо,
телефон которого прослушивался, должно быть проинформировано об
этом в случае, если дело против него прекращено. Такие вопросы
действительно связаны с условием "необходимо в демократическом
обществе", но должны рассматриваться конкретно в обстоятельствах
каждого дела.
32. Суд не может согласиться с этими доводами Правительства.
Призванный установить, действительно ли обжалуемое вмешательство
властей "предусмотрено законом", Суд, безусловно, должен оценить
соответствующий французский "закон" с точки зрения требований
фундаментального принципа верховенства права. Такой анализ
обязательно будет несколько абстрактным. Тем не менее он говорит
кое-что о качестве национальных правовых норм, применимых в
настоящем деле г-на Крюслена.
33. Прослушивание и другие формы перехвата телефонных
разговоров представляют собой серьезное вмешательство в личную
жизнь и корреспонденцию и поэтому должны быть основаны на
"законе", который в этой части должен быть особенно точным.
Требуются четкие и детально разработанные правила проведения
подобных оперативных мероприятий, тем более что соответствующая
технология постоянно развивается и усложняется.
В Комиссии (дополнительные замечания от 4 июля 1988 г.,
с. 4 - 7, суммированы в п. 37 доклада) и (в несколько иной форме)
в Суде Правительство сообщило о семнадцати гарантиях, которые, по
его словам, предусмотрены французским правом.
Они касаются как самого прослушивания телефонных разговоров,
так и использования полученной таким образом информации, а равно
средств исправления любого допущенного нарушения. Все эти гарантии
действовали в отношении заявителя.
34. Суд никоим образом не умаляет ценности некоторых из этих
гарантий, как-то: необходимость получения разрешения судебного
следователя - независимого магистрата; контроль, который он
осуществляет за действиями офицеров судебной полиции; контроль за
действиями самого судебного следователя, осуществляемый
Обвинительной палатой, самими судами, а в случае необходимости и
Кассационным судом; исключение любых "хитростей" и "уловок", то
есть всякого рода "ловушек" или провокаций в процессе
прослушивания телефонных разговоров; уважение конфиденциальности
отношений между подозреваемыми или обвиняемыми и их адвокатами.
Однако необходимо отметить, что только некоторые из этих
гарантий предусмотрены статьями 81, 151 и 152
Уголовно-процессуального кодекса в явной форме. Другие
складывались в судебной практике в течение ряда лет, а большинство
из них только после поступления жалобы на прослушивание телефонных
разговоров от г-на Крюслена (июнь 1982 г.). Некоторые гарантии так
и не нашли явного отражения в судебной практике, по крайней мере
согласно собранной Судом информации. Похоже, что Правительство
выводит эти гарантии из общих принципов или путем аналогии закона,
или из судебных решений о следственных мероприятиях иного рода,
например процедуры обыска. Хотя такая "экстраполяция" сама по себе
вполне возможна, тем не менее в контексте данного дела она не
обеспечивает достаточной юридической надежности.
35. Самым главным является то, что в настоящее время
вышеуказанная система не позволяет предоставить достаточных
гарантий против возможности различного рода злоупотреблений.
Например, ни в одном документе не определены категории лиц,
телефоны которых могут быть прослушаны по постановлению суда,
равно как не определен характер правонарушений, при котором
возможно прослушивание. Ничто не обязывает судью определить
продолжительность данной меры. Равным образом не установлен
порядок составления итоговых протоколов, фиксирующих прослушанные
разговоры. Не оговорены меры предосторожности, которые должны
приниматься для сохранения записей в целости и сохранности на
случай возможной проверки их судьей (сейчас он с трудом может
установить номер и длину оригинальных лент) или адвокатом. Не
определены обстоятельства, при которых записи могут или должны
быть размагничены, а также когда необходимо уничтожать ленты с
записями (например, при снятии обвинения или при оправдании
судом). Информация, предоставленная Правительством по этим
вопросам, свидетельствует в лучшем случае о существовании
определенной практики, которая не является обязательной за
отсутствием закона и сложившейся судебной практики.
36. Короче говоря, французское право, писаное и неписаное, не
устанавливает с разумной ясностью соответствующие пределы
усмотрения властей в данной сфере, а также процедуру и методы
проведения специальных оперативных мероприятий. Все вышесказанное
еще более соответствовало истине в тот период, когда
прослушивались разговоры заявителя. Таким образом, г-ну Крюслену
не была гарантирована минимальная степень защиты, на которую имеют
право граждане в условиях верховенства права в демократическом
обществе (см. вышеупомянутое Решение по делу Мэлоуна. Серия A,
т. 82, с. 36, п. 79).
В связи с этим Суд констатирует нарушение статьи 8 Конвенции.
B. Цель и необходимость вмешательства
37. С учетом вышеизложенного Суд, равно как и Комиссия
(см. п. 77 доклада Комиссии), не видит необходимости в
рассмотрении вопроса соблюдения по данному делу других требований
статьи 8 п. 2.
II. Применение статьи 50 Конвенции
38. Статья 50 Конвенции гласит:
"Если Суд установит, что решение или мера, принятые судебными
или иными властями Высокой Договаривающейся Стороны, полностью или
частично противоречат обязательствам, вытекающим из настоящей
Конвенции, а также если внутреннее право упомянутой Стороны
допускает лишь частичное возмещение последствий такого решения или
такой меры, то решением Суда, если в этом есть необходимость,
предусматривается справедливое возмещение потерпевшей стороне".
Заявитель требует, во-первых, компенсацию в сумме 1000000
французских франков за пятнадцатилетнее тюремное заключение
(см. п. 13 выше), которое, как он утверждает, явилось прямым
результатом нарушения статьи 8 Конвенции, поскольку именно
прослушивание его телефонных разговоров привело к возбуждению
против него уголовного дела. Он требует также возмещения стоимости
услуг адвоката, а именно 20000 французских франков, по подготовке
им апелляции на Решение обвинительной палаты от 16 апреля 1985 г.
и 50000 французских франков за услуги защитника в суде ассизов
департамента Верхняя Гаронна и в Кассационном суде. Заявитель не
выдвинул требования о возмещении расходов в связи с
разбирательством дела в Страсбурге, поскольку Комиссия и Суд
предоставили ему бесплатную судебную помощь.
Правительство и представитель Комиссии не выразили своего
мнения по этим вопросам.
39. С учетом обстоятельств данного дела сам факт признания
Судом нарушения статьи 8 является достаточным справедливым
возмещением за требуемый заявителем ущерб. Соответственно отпадает
необходимость в присуждении ему денежной компенсации.
40. Издержки и расходы, понесенные заявителем в судах,
вынесших ему обвинительные приговоры, не могут быть приняты во
внимание Судом. По заявлению г-на Крюслена, прослушивание
телефонных разговоров, вне всякого сомнения, было использовано
против него в двух судебных делах подряд. Однако Комиссия и Суд
занимались только вопросом выполнения требований Конвенции в связи
с делом Жерб д'Ор (см. п. 14 in fine выше).
Тем не менее сумма в 20000 французских франков, испрашиваемая
заявителем в связи с последним делом, является обоснованной и не
завышенной и поэтому должна быть присуждена заявителю.
ПО ЭТИМ ОСНОВАНИЯМ СУД ЕДИНОГЛАСНО
1. Постановил, что имело место нарушение статьи 8;
2. Постановил, что настоящее Судебное решение само по себе
представляет достаточное справедливое возмещение ущерба, на
которое претендует заявитель;
3. Постановил, что государство - ответчик должно выплатить
заявителю 20000 (двадцать тысяч) французских франков в возмещение
понесенных им судебных издержек и расходов;
4. Отклонил требования заявителя по статье 50 Конвенции в
остальном.
Совершено на английском и французском языках и оглашено во
Дворце прав человека в Страсбурге 24 апреля 1990 г.
Председатель
Рольф РИССДАЛ
Грефье
Марк-Андре ЭЙССЕН
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF KRUSLIN v. FRANCE
JUDGMENT
(Strasbourg, 24.IV.1990)
In the Kruslin case <1>,
--------------------------------
<1> Note by the Registrar: The case is numbered
7/1989/167/223. The first number is the case's position on the
list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second
number). 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.
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance
with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the
relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed
of the following judges:
Mr R. Ryssdal, President,
Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert,
Mr F. {Golcuklu}, <*>
Mr F. Matscher,
Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Mr B. Walsh,
Sir Vincent Evans,
and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold,
Deputy Registrar,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке
набраны латинским шрифтом и выделенены фигурными скобками.
Having deliberated in private on 26 October 1989 and 27 March
1990,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the
last-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court by the European
Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 16 March 1989,
within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 з 1 and
Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated
in an application (no. 11801/85) against the French Republic
lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a
national of that State, Mr Jean Kruslin, on 16 October 1985.
The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48
(art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby France
recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46)
(art. 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as
to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the
respondent State of its obligations under Article 8 (art. 8).
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with
Rule 33 з 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that
he wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the
lawyer who would represent him (Rule 30).
3. On 30 March 1989 the President of the Court decided, under
Rule 21 з 6 and in the interests of sound administration of
justice, that a single Chamber should be constituted to consider
both the instant case and the Huvig case <2>.
--------------------------------
<2> Note by the Registrar: Case no. 4/1989/164/220.
The Chamber thus constituted included ex officio Mr L.-E.
Pettiti, the elected judge of French nationality (Article 43 of
the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the
Court (Rule 21 з 3 (b)). On the same day, 30 March 1989, in the
presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of
the other five members, namely Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert,
Mr F. {Golcuklu}, Mr F. Matscher, Mr B. Walsh and Sir Vincent
Evans (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 з 4)
(art. 43).
4. Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber
(Rule 21 з 5) and, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of
the French Government ("the Government"), the Delegate of the
Commission and the lawyer for the applicant on the need for a
written procedure (Rule 37 з 1). In accordance with his orders and
instructions, the Registrar received, on 10 July 1989,
Mr Kruslin's claims under Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention
and, on 17 August, the Government's memorial. On 19 October the
Secretariat of the Commission informed the Registrar that the
Delegate would submit his observations at the hearing.
On 10 and 16 October 1989 the Commission supplied the
Registrar with various documents he had asked for on the
President's instructions.
5. Having consulted, through the Registrar, those who would be
appearing before the Court, the President had directed on 21 June
1989 that the oral proceedings should open on 24 October 1989
(Rule 38).
On 29 September he granted the applicant legal aid (Rule 4 of
the Addendum to the Rules of Court).
6. The hearing took place in public in the Human Rights
Building, Strasbourg, on the appointed day. The Court had held a
preparatory meeting immediately beforehand.
There appeared before the Court:
(a) for the Government
Mr J.-P. Puissochet, Head of the Department of Legal Affairs,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Agent,
Mrs I. Chaussade, magistrat, on secondment to the Department
of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Miss M. Picard, magistrat, on secondment to the Department of
Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr M. Dobkine, magistrat, Department of Criminal Affairs and
Pardons, Ministry of Justice,
Mr F. Le Gunehec, magistrat, Department of Criminal Affairs
and Pardons, Ministry of Justice, Counsel;
(b) for the Commission
Mr S. Trechsel, Delegate;
(c) for the applicant
Ms C. Waquet, avocat at the Conseil d'Etat and the Court of
Cassation, Counsel.
The Court heard addresses by Mr Puissochet for the Government,
by Mr Trechsel for the Commission and by Ms Waquet for the
applicant, as well as their answers to its questions.
7. On various dates between 24 October and 7 December 1989 the
Government and Mr Kruslin's representative produced several
documents, either of their own accord or because the Court had
requested them at the hearing. To one of them Ms Waquet had
attached a short memorandum of observations, and the President
consented to this being filed; she also supplemented her client's
claims for just satisfaction with pleadings which reached the
registry on 24 November.
AS TO THE FACTS
I. Circumstances of the case
8. Mr Jean Kruslin, who is unemployed and has no fixed abode,
is currently in custody at Fresnes (Val-de-Marne).
9. On 8 and 14 June 1982 an investigating judge at
Saint-Gaudens (Haute-Garonne), who was inquiring into the murder
of a banker, Mr Jean Baron, at {Montrejeau} on the night of
7 - 8 June ("the Baron case"), issued two warrants to the
commanding officer of the investigation section of the Toulouse
gendarmerie. In the second of these the officer was instructed to
tap the telephone of a suspect, Mr Dominique Terrieux, who lived
in Toulouse.
From 15 to 17 June the gendarmes intercepted seventeen
telephone calls in all. The applicant, who was staying with
Mr Terrieux at the time and occasionally used his telephone, had
been a party to several of the telephone conversations and more
especially to one between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. on 17 June with
someone calling him from a public telephone-box in Perpignan
({Pyrenees}-Orientales).
During their short conversation the two men had spoken in
veiled terms about a different case from the Baron case,
concerning in particular the murder on 29 May 1982 of Mr Henri
{Pere}, an employee of the Gerbe d'Or jewellers in Toulouse ("the
Gerbe d'Or case"). The gendarmes reported this the next day to
colleagues from the criminal-investigation branch of the police.
On 11 June 1982 an investigating judge in Toulouse had issued a
warrant to these officers to investigate that case, and they now
immediately listened to the recording of the telephone
conversation in question, had it transcribed and appended the text
to a report drawn up at midnight on 18 June; the original tape
remained, sealed, with the gendarmerie.
10. At dawn on 18 June the gendarmes arrested Mr Kruslin at
Mr Terrieux's home and held him in custody in connection with the
Baron case.
Early that afternoon he was questioned about the Gerbe d'Or
case by the police (who had already questioned him on 15 June and
then released him after about four hours) and - the next day, it
seems - he was charged together with Mr Terrieux and one Patrick
Antoine with murder, aggravated theft and attempted aggravated
theft. On 25 October 1982 the Toulouse investigating judge held a
confrontation of the three men, during which after the seals had
been broken in their presence - the aforementioned taperecording
was heard in its entirety, including the conversation on the
evening of 17 June.
Mr Kruslin adopted the same attitude as when questioned by the
police on 18 June: he protested his innocence and denied - in
respect of this conversation but not of the others - that the
voice was his. Mr Terrieux now said that he did not recognise the
voice, whereas he had identified it earlier.
The tape was resealed, again in the presence of the persons
charged. The applicant refused to sign either the report or the
form recording the sealing.
He subsequently applied for an examination by experts, and the
investigating judge granted the application in an order of
10 February 1983. In their report of 8 June 1983, however, the
three experts who were appointed felt able to state "with 80%
certainty" that the voice they had analysed was indeed
Mr Kruslin's.
11. Before the Indictment Division (chambre d'accusation) of
the Toulouse Court of Appeal, to which the case was sent after the
judicial investigation was completed, the applicant requested that
the recording of the disputed conversation should be ruled
inadmissible in evidence because it had been made in connection
with proceedings which, he claimed, did not concern him - the
Baron case. On 16 April 1985 the Indictment Division dismissed
this plea in the following terms:
"... while this telephone tapping was ordered by the
investigating judge at the Saint-Gaudens tribunal de grande
instance in connection with other proceedings, the fact remains
that judges are not prohibited by either Article 11 [which lays
down the principle that judicial investigations shall be
confidential] or Articles R.155 and R.156 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure from deciding to include in criminal proceedings
evidence from other proceedings which may assist them and help to
establish the truth, on the sole condition - which was satisfied
in the instant case - that such evidence is added under an
adversarial procedure and that it has been submitted to the
parties for them to comment on ..."
In so doing, the Indictment Division, it appears, took as its
inspiration - and extended by analogy to the field of telephone
tapping the settled case-law of the Criminal Division of the Court
of Cassation, developed in respect of other investigative measures
(see, for example, 11 March 1964, Bulletin (Bull.) no. 86;
13 January 1970, Bull. no. 21; 19 December 1973, Bull. no. 480;
26 May and 30 November 1976, Bull. nos. 186 and 345; 16 March and
2 October 1981, Bull. nos. 91 and 256).
In the same decision the Indictment Division committed
Mr Kruslin - with four others, including Mr Terrieux and
Mr Antoine - for trial at the Haute-Garonne Assize Court on
charges, in his case, of aiding and abetting a murder, aggravated
theft and attempted aggravated theft.
12. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation on points
of law. In the second of his five grounds of appeal he relied on
Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention. He criticised the Indictment
Division of the Toulouse Court of Appeal for having
"refused to rule that the evidence from telephone tapping in
connection with other proceedings was inadmissible;
whereas interference by the public authorities with a person's
private and family life, home and correspondence is not necessary
in a democratic society for the prevention of crime unless it is
in accordance with a law that satisfies the following two
requirements: it must be of a quality such that it is sufficiently
clear in its terms to give citizens an adequate indication of the
circumstances in which and the conditions on which public
authorities are empowered to resort to this secret and potentially
dangerous interference with the right to respect for private life
and correspondence, and it must define the scope and manner of
exercise of such a power clearly enough to give the individual
adequate protection from arbitrary interference; these
requirements are not satisfied by any provision of French law, and
particularly not by Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".
In his supplementary pleadings of 11 June 1985 (pp. 5 - 8)
counsel for Mr Kruslin relied on the case-law of the European
Court of Human Rights, both in regard to telephone tapping (Klass
and Others judgment of 6 September 1978 and Malone judgment of
2 August 1984, Series A nos. 28 and 82) and in other respects
(Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Sunday Times judgment of
26 April 1979 and Silver and Others judgment of 25 March 1983,
Series A nos. 18, 30 and 61).
The Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation dismissed the
appeal in a judgment of 23 July 1985. As regards the point in
question it gave the following reasons for its decision:
"...
An examination of the evidence shows that the transcript of a
tape recording of conversations in calls made on Terrieux's
telephone line was included in the file of the murder
investigation then being conducted by the Toulouse investigating
judge following the death of Henri {Pere} at the hands of a person
or persons unknown; this recording had been made pursuant to a
warrant issued by the investigating judge at Saint-Gaudens in
connection with the investigation of another murder, likewise
committed by a person or persons unknown; it was because of its
relevance to the investigation into {Pere's} death that the
transcription was made by senior police officers acting under a
warrant issued by the investigating judge in Toulouse;
The tenor of the conversations recorded was made known to the
various persons concerned, notably Kruslin, who was asked to
account for them both during the inquiries made pursuant to the
investigating judge's warrant and after he was charged;
furthermore, an examination of the tape recording by an expert,
whose report was subsequently added to the evidence, was made
pursuant to a lawful decision by the investigating judge;
That being so, the Indictment Division did not lay itself open
to the objection raised in the ground of appeal by refusing to
rule that the evidence from telephone tapping in connection with
other proceedings was inadmissible;
In the first place, there is no statutory provision
prohibiting the inclusion in criminal proceedings of evidence from
other proceedings which may assist the judges and help to
establish the truth; the sole condition is that such evidence
should be added under an adversarial procedure - which was so in
this case, in which the documents were submitted to the parties
for them to comment on;
In the second place, it is clear from Articles 81 and 151 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and from the general principles of
criminal procedure that, among other things, firstly, telephone
tapping may be ordered by an investigating judge, by means of a
warrant, only where there is a presumption that a specific offence
has been committed which has given rise to the investigation which
the judge has been assigned to undertake, and that it cannot be
directed, on the off chance, against a whole category of offences;
and, secondly, that the interception ordered must be carried out
under the supervision of the investigating judge, without any
subterfuge or ruse being employed and in such a way that the
exercise of the rights of the defence cannot be jeopardised;
These provisions governing the use of telephone tapping by an
investigating judge, which have not been shown to have been
infringed in the instant case, satisfy the requirements of
Article 8 (art. 8) of the European Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
..." (Bull. no. 275, pp. 713 - 715)
13. It appears from the file that the recording of the
telephone conversation of 17 June 1982 was a decisive piece of
evidence in the proceedings against the applicant. These
proceedings ended, on 28 November 1986, with a judgment of the
Haute-Garonne Assize Court. Mr Kruslin was acquitted of murder but
sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment for armed robbery and
attempted armed robbery; an appeal by him to the Court of
Cassation was dismissed on 28 October 1987. He seems always to
have protested his innocence.
14. In the Baron case the Indictment Division of the Toulouse
Court of Appeal likewise committed the applicant, on 2 June 1987,
for trial at the Haute-Garonne Assizes, together with Mr Antoine
and one Charles Croce. At that trial too he alleged that the
telephone tapping carried out from 15 to 17 June 1982 was
inadmissible; on 4 November 1987 the Criminal Division of the
Court of Cassation dismissed this plea on grounds identical,
mutatis mutandis, to those in its judgment of 23 July 1985
previously cited (see paragraph 12 above - Recueil Dalloz Sirey
(DS) 1988, sommaires, p. 195). On 2 December 1988 the Assize Court
sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment for premeditated
murder; he lodged an appeal on points of law, but this was
dismissed by the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation on
6 November 1989.
The complaints he made to the Commission, however, related
solely to the telephone tapping whose results were used in the
Gerbe d'Or case.
II. The relevant legislation and case-law
15. French criminal law adopts the principle that any kind of
evidence is admissible: "unless otherwise provided by statute, any
type of evidence shall be admissible to substantiate a criminal
charge ..." (Article 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
There is no statutory provision which expressly empowers
investigating judges to carry out or order telephone tapping, or
indeed to carry out or order various measures which are
nonetheless in common use, such as the taking of photographs or
fingerprints, shadowing, surveillance, requisitions,
confrontations of witnesses and reconstructions of crimes. On the
other hand, the Code of Criminal Procedure does expressly confer
power on them to take several other measures, which it regulates
in detail, such as pre-trial detention, seizure of property and
searches.
16. Under the old Code of Criminal Procedure the Court of
Cassation had condemned the use of telephone tapping by
investigating judges, at least in circumstances which it regarded
as disclosing, on the part of a judge or the police, a lack of
"fairness" incompatible with the rules of criminal procedure and
the safeguards essential to the rights of the defence (combined
divisions, 31 January 1888, {ministere} public c. Vigneau, Dalloz
1888, jurisprudence, pp. 73 - 74; Criminal Division, 12 June 1952,
Imbert, Bull. no. 153, pp. 258 - 260; Civil Division, second
section, 18 March 1955, {epoux} Jolivot c. {epoux} Lubrano et
autres, DS 1955, jurisprudence, pp. 573 - 574, and Gazette du
Palais (GP) 1955, jurisprudence, p. 249). Some trial courts and
courts of appeal which had to deal with the issue, on the other
hand, showed some willingness to hold that such telephone tapping
was lawful if there had been neither "entrapment" nor
"provocation"; this view was based on Article 90 of the former
Code (Seine Criminal Court, Tenth Division, 13 February 1957,
{ministere} public contre X, GP 1957, jurisprudence, pp. 309 -
310).
17. Since the 1958 Code of Criminal Procedure came into force,
the courts have had regard in this respect to, among others,
Articles 81, 151 and 152, which provide:
Article 81
(first, fourth and fifth paragraphs)
"The investigating judge shall, in accordance with the law,
take all the investigative measures which he deems useful for
establishing the truth.
...
If the investigating judge is unable to take all the
investigative measures himself, he may issue warrants to senior
police officers (officiers de police judiciaire) in order to have
them carry out all the necessary investigative measures on the
conditions and subject to the reservations provided for in
Articles 151 and 152.
The investigating judge must verify the information thus
gathered.
..."
Article 151
(as worded at the material time)
"An investigating judge may issue a warrant requiring any
judge of his court, any district-court judge within the
territorial jurisdiction of that court, any senior police officer
(officier de police judiciaire) with authority in that
jurisdiction or any investigating judge to undertake any
investigative measures he considers necessary in places coming
under their respective jurisdictions.
The warrant shall indicate the nature of the offence to which
the proceedings relate. It shall be dated and signed by the
issuing judge and shall bear his seal.
It may only order investigative measures directly connected
with the prosecution of the offence to which the proceedings
relate.
..."
Article 152
"The judges or senior police officers instructed to act shall
exercise, within the limits of the warrant, all the powers of the
investigating judge.
..."
18. An Act of 17 July 1970 added to the Civil Code an
Article 9 guaranteeing to everyone "the right to respect for his
private life". It also added to the Criminal Code an Article 368,
whereby:
"Anyone who wilfully intrudes on the privacy of others:
1. By listening to, recording or transmitting by means of any
device, words spoken by a person in a private place, without that
person's consent;
2. ...
shall be liable to imprisonment for not less than two months
and not more than one year and a fine ... or to only one of these
two penalties."
During the preparatory work, one of the vice-chairmen of the
National Assembly's Statutes Committee, Mr Zimmermann, sought
"certain assurances" that this enactment "[would] not prevent the
investigating judge from issuing strictly within the provisions of
the law warrants to have telephones tapped, obviously without
making use of any form of inducement and in compliance with all
the legal procedures" (Journal officiel, National Assembly, 1970
proceedings, p. 2074). The Minister of Justice, Mr {Rene} Pleven,
replied: "... there is no question of interfering with the powers
of investigating judges, who are indeed empowered, in the
circumstances laid down by law, to order tapping"; he added a
little later: "When an official taps a telephone, he can only do
so lawfully if he has a warrant from a judicial authority or is
acting on the instructions of a minister" (ibid., p. 2075). Both
Houses of Parliament thereupon passed the Bill without amending it
on this point.
19. Article 41 of the Post and Telecommunications Code
provides that any public servant or anyone authorised to assist
with the performance of relevant official duties who breaches the
secrecy of correspondence entrusted to the telecommunications
service shall be liable to the penalties provided for in
Article 187 of the Criminal Code - a fine, imprisonment and
temporary disqualification from any public office or employment.
Article 42 provides that anyone who, without permission from the
sender or the addressee, divulges, publishes or uses the content
of correspondence transmitted over the air or by telephone shall
be liable to the penalties provided for in Article 378 of the
Criminal Code (on professional confidentiality) - a fine or
imprisonment.
General Instruction no. 500-78 on the telephone service -
intended for Post and Telecommunications Authority officials -
contains the following provisions, however, given here in the
amended version of 1964 (Article 24 of Part III):
"Postmasters and sub-postmasters are required to comply with
any requests that ... calls to or from a specified telephone
should be monitored by the relevant authority, made by:
1. An investigating judge (Articles 81, 92 and 94 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure) or any judge or senior police officer
(officier de police judiciaire) to whom a judicial warrant has
been issued (Art. 152);
..."
The General Instruction was published in the official bulletin
of the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications and was described
by the Government as an "implementing regulation".
20. The striking development of various forms of serious
crime - large-scale thefts and robberies, terrorism,
drug-trafficking - appears in France to have led to a marked
increase in the frequency with which investigating judges resort
to telephone tapping. The courts have as a result given many more
decisions on the subject than formerly; telephone tapping has not
been held to be unlawful in itself, although the courts have
occasionally shown some distaste for it (Paris Court of Appeal,
Ninth Criminal Division, 28 March 1960, Cany et Rozenbaum, GP
1960, jurisprudence, pp. 253 - 254).
The decisions cited to the Court by the Government, the
Commission and the applicant, or of which the Court has had
cognisance by its own means, are mostly of later date than the
facts of the instant case (June 1982) and have gradually provided
a number of clarifications. These do not all stem from judgments
of the Court of Cassation, and do not for the time being
constitute a uniform body of case-law, because the decisions or
reasons given in some of the cases have remained unique. They may
be summarised as follows.
(a) Articles 81 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see
paragraph 17 above) empower investigating judges - and them alone,
as far as judicial investigations are concerned - to carry out
telephone tapping or, much more commonly in practice, to issue a
warrant to that effect to a senior police officer (officier de
police judiciaire) within the meaning of Article 16 (see, in
particular, Court of Cassation, Criminal Division, 9 October 1980,
Tournet, Bull. no. 255, pp. 662 - 664; 24 April 1984, Peureux,
Huvig et autre, DS 1986, jurisprudence, pp. 125 - 128; 23 July
1985 - see paragraph 12 above; 4 November 1987 - see paragraph 14
above; 15 February 1988, Schroeder, and 15 March 1988, Arfi, Bull.
no. 128, pp. 327 - 335). Telephone tapping is an "investigative
measure" which may sometimes be "useful for establishing the
truth". It is comparable to the seizure of letters or telegrams
(see, among other authorities, Poitiers Court of Appeal, Criminal
Division, 7 January 1960, Manchet, Juris-Classeur {periodique}
(JCP) 1960, jurisprudence, no. 11599, and Paris Court of Appeal,
Indictment Division, 27 June 1984, F. et autre, DS 1985,
jurisprudence, pp. 93 - 96) and it similarly does not offend the
provisions of Article 368 of the Criminal Code, having regard to
the legislative history and to the principle that any kind of
evidence is admissible (see paragraphs 15 and 18 above and
Strasbourg tribunal de grande instance, 15 February 1983, S. et
autres, unreported; Colmar Court of Appeal, 9 March 1984,
Chalvignac et autre, unreported but cited by the Government at the
Commission hearing on 6 May 1988; Paris Court of Appeal,
Indictment Division, judgment of 27 June 1984 previously cited and
judgment of 31 October 1984, Li Siu Lung et autres, GP 1985,
sommaires, pp. 94 - 95).
(b) The investigating judge can only issue such a warrant
"where there is a presumption that a specific offence has been
committed which has given rise to the investigation" which he is
responsible for conducting and not in respect of a whole category
of offences "on the off chance"; this is clear not only from
Articles 81 and 151 (second and third paragraphs) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure but also "from the general principles of
criminal procedure" (see, among other authorities, Court of
Cassation, Criminal Division, judgments of 23 July 1985,
4 November 1987 and 15 March 1988 previously cited).
The French courts do not seem ever to have held that telephone
tapping is lawful only where the offences being investigated are
of some seriousness or if the investigating judge has specified a
maximum duration for it.
(c) "Within the limits of the warrant" that has been issued to
him - if need be by fax (Limoges Court of Appeal, Criminal
Division, 18 November 1988, Lecesne et autres, DS 1989, sommaires,
p. 394) - the senior police officer exercises "all the powers of
the investigating judge" (Article 152 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure). He exercises these under the supervision of the
investigating judge, who by the fifth paragraph of Article 81 is
bound to "verify the information ... gathered" (see, among other
authorities, Court of Cassation, Criminal Division, judgments of
9 October 1980, 24 April 1984, 23 July 1985, 4 November 1987 and
15 March 1988 previously cited).
The warrant apparently sometimes takes the form of a general
delegation of powers, including - without its being expressly
mentioned - the power to tap telephones (Court of Cassation, Civil
Division, second section, judgment of 18 March 1955 previously
cited, and Paris Court of Appeal, judgment of 28 March 1960
previously cited).
(d) In no case may a police officer tap telephones on his own
initiative without a warrant, for example during the preliminary
investigation preceding the opening of the judicial investigation
(see, among other authorities, Court of Cassation, Criminal
Division, 13 June 1989, Derrien, and 19 June 1989, Grayo, Bull.
no. 254, pp. 635 - 637, and no. 261, pp. 648 - 651; full court,
24 November 1989, Derrien, DS 1990, p. 34, and JCP 1990,
jurisprudence, no. 21418, with the submissions of
Mr Advocate-General Emile Robert).
(e) Telephone tapping must not be accompanied by "any
subterfuge or ruse" (see, among other authorities, Court of
Cassation, Criminal Division, judgment of 9 October 1980, 24 April
1984, 23 July 1985, 4 November 1987, 15 February 1988 and 15 March
1988 previously cited) failing which the information gathered by
means of it must be either deleted or removed from the case file
(Court of Cassation, Criminal Division, judgments of 13 and
19 June 1989 previously cited).
(f) The telephone tapping must also be carried out "in such a
way that the exercise of the rights of the defence cannot be
jeopardised" (see, among other authorities, Court of Cassation,
Criminal Division, judgments of 9 October 1980, 24 April 1984,
23 July 1985, 4 November 1987, 15 February 1988, 15 March 1988 and
19 June 1989 previously cited). In particular, the confidentiality
of the relations between suspect or person accused and lawyer must
be respected, as must, more generally, a lawyer's duty of
professional confidentiality, at least when he is not acting in
any other capacity (Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, Indictment
Division, 16 June 1982 and 2 February 1983, Sadji Hamou et autres,
GP 1982, jurisprudence, pp. 645 - 649, and GP 1983, jurisprudence,
pp. 313 - 315; Paris Court of Appeal, Indictment Division,
judgment of 27 June 1984 previously cited).
(g) With this reservation, it is permissible to tap telephone
calls to or from a charged person (Court of Cassation, Criminal
Division, judgments of 9 October 1980 and 24 April 1984 previously
cited) or a mere suspect, such as Mr Terrieux in the instant case
(see paragraph 9 above and also the previously cited judgments of
the Strasbourg tribunal de grande instance, 15 February 1983, the
Colmar Court of Appeal, 9 March 1984, and the Indictment Division
of the Paris Court of Appeal, 27 June 1984) or even a third party,
such as a witness, whom there is reason to believe to be in
possession of information about the perpetrators or circumstances
of the offence (see, among other authorities, Aix-en-Provence
Court of Appeal, judgment of 16 June 1982 previously cited).
(h) A public telephone-box may be tapped (Seine Criminal
Court, Tenth Division, 30 October 1964, {Tresor} public et
{Societe} de courses c. L. et autres, DS 1965, jurisprudence,
pp. 423-424) just like a private line, irrespective of whether
current is diverted to a listening station (Court of Cassation,
Criminal Division, 13 June 1989, and full court, 24 November 1989,
previously cited).
(i) The senior police officer supervises the tape or cassette
recording of the conversations and their transcription, where he
does not carry out these operations himself; when it comes to
choosing extracts to submit "for examination by the court", it is
for him to determine "what words may render the speaker liable to
criminal proceedings". He performs these duties "on his own
responsibility and under the supervision of the investigating
judge" (Strasbourg tribunal de grande instance, judgment of
15 February 1983 previously cited, upheld by the Colmar Court of
Appeal on 9 March 1984; Paris Court of Appeal, judgment of 27 June
1984 previously cited).
(j) The original tapes - which in the instant case were sealed
(see paragraphs 8 - 9 above) - are "exhibits", not "investigation
documents", but have only the weight of circumstantial evidence;
their contents are transcribed in reports in order to give them a
physical form so that they can be inspected (Court of Cassation,
Criminal Division, 28 April 1987, Allieis, Bull. no. 173, pp. 462
- 467).
(k) If transcription raises a problem of translation into
French, Articles 156 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
which deal with expert opinions, do not apply to the appointment
and work of the translator (Court of Cassation, Criminal Division,
6 September 1988, Fekari, Bull. no. 317, pp. 861 - 862 (extracts),
and 18 December 1989, M. et autres, not yet reported).
(l) There is no statutory provision prohibiting the inclusion
in the file on a criminal case of evidence from other proceedings,
such as tapes and reports containing transcriptions, if they may
"assist the judges and help to establish the truth", provided that
such evidence is added under an adversarial procedure (Toulouse
Court of Appeal, Indictment Division, 16 April 1985 - see
paragraph 11 above; Court of Cassation, Criminal Division, 23 July
1985 - see paragraph 12 above - and 6 September 1988 previously
cited).
(m) The defence must be able to inspect the reports containing
transcriptions, to hear the original tape recordings, to challenge
their authenticity during the judicial investigation and
subsequent trial and to apply for any necessary investigative
measures - such as an expert opinion, as in the instant case (see
paragraph 10 in fine) - relating to their contents and the
circumstances in which they were made (see, among other
authorities, Court of Cassation, Criminal Division, 23 July 1985 -
see paragraph 12 above; 16 July 1986, Illouz, unreported; and
28 April 1987, Allieis, previously cited).
(n) Just as the investigating judge supervises the senior
police officer, he is himself supervised by the Indictment
Division, to which he - exactly like the public prosecutor - may
apply under Article 171 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Trial courts, courts of appeal and the Court of Cassation may
have to deal with objections or grounds of appeal as the case may
be - particularly by defendants but also, on occasion, by the
prosecution (Court of Cassation, judgments of 19 June and
24 November 1989 previously cited) - based on a failure to comply
with the requirements summarised above or with other rules which
the parties concerned claim are applicable. A failure of this
kind, however, would not automatically nullify the proceedings
such that a court of appeal could be held to have erred if it had
not dealt with them of its own motion; they affect only defence
rights (Court of Cassation, Criminal Division, 11 December 1989,
Takrouni, not yet reported).
21. Since at least 1981, parties have increasingly often
relied on Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention - and, much less
frequently, on Article 6 (art. 6) (Court of Cassation, Criminal
Division, 23 April 1981, Pellegrin et autres, Bull. no. 117,
pp. 328 - 335, and 21 November 1988, S. et autres) - in support of
their complaints about telephone tapping; they have sometimes as
in the instant case (see paragraph 12 above) - cited the case-law
of the European Court of Human Rights.
Hitherto only telephone tapping carried out without a warrant,
during the police investigation (see, among other authorities,
Court of Cassation, judgments of 13 June and 24 November 1989
previously cited), or in unexplained circumstances (see, among
other authorities, Court of Cassation, judgment of 19 June 1989
previously cited) or in violation of defence rights (Paris Court
of Appeal, Indictment Division, judgment of 31 October 1984,
previously cited) has been held by the French courts to be
contrary to Article 8 з 2 (art. 8-2) ("in accordance with the
law") or to domestic law in the strict sense. In all other cases
the courts have either found no violation (Court of Cassation,
Criminal Division, judgments of 24 April 1984, 23 July 1985,
16 July 1986, 28 April 1987, 4 November 1987, 15 February 1988,
15 March 1988, 6 September 1988 and 18 December 1989 previously
cited, and 16 November 1988, S. et autre, unreported, and the
judgments of 15 February 1983 (Strasbourg), 9 March 1984 (Colmar)
and 27 June 1984 (Paris) previously cited) or else ruled the plea
inadmissible for various reasons (Court of Cassation, Criminal
Division, judgments of 23 April 1981, 21 November 1988 and
11 December 1989 previously cited and the unreported judgments of
24 May 1983, S. et autres; 23 May 1985, Y. H. W.; 17 February
1986, H.; 4 November 1986, J.; and 5 February 1990, B. et autres).
22. While academic opinion is divided as to the compatibility
of telephone tapping as carried out in France - on the orders of
investigating judges or others - with the national and
international legal rules in force in the country, there seems to
be unanimous agreement that it is desirable and even necessary for
Parliament to try to solve the problem by following the example
set by many foreign States (see in particular {Gaetan} di Marino,
comments on the Tournet judgment of 9 October 1980 (Court of
Cassation), JCP 1981, jurisprudence, no. 19578; Albert Chavanne,
"Les {resultats} de l'audio-surveillance comme preuve {penale}",
Revue internationale de droit {compare}, 1986, pp. 752 - 753 and
755; {Gerard} Cohen-Jonathan, "Les {ecoutes telephoniques}",
Studies in honour of {Gerard} J. Wiarda, 1988, p. 104; Jean
Pradel, "Ecoutes {telephoniques} et Convention {europeenne} des
Droits de l'Homme", DS 1990, chronique, pp. 17 - 20). In July 1981
the Government set up a study group chaired by Mr Robert Schmelck,
who was then President of the Court of Cassation, and consisting
of senators and MPs of various political persuasions, judges,
university professors, senior civil servants, judges and a
barrister. The group submitted a report on 25 June 1982, but this
has remained confidential and has not yet led to a bill being
tabled.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
23. Before the Commission, to which he applied on 16 October
1985 (application no. 11801/85), Mr Kruslin put forward a single
ground of complaint: he argued that the interception and recording
of his telephone conversation on 17 June 1982 had infringed
Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention.
The Commission declared the application admissible on 6 May
1988. In its report of 14 December 1988 (made under Article 31)
(art. 31) it expressed the opinion by ten votes to two that there
had indeed been a breach of that Article (art. 8). The full text
of the Commission's opinion and of the separate opinion contained
in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment <3>.
--------------------------------
<3> Note by the Registrar: For practical reasons this annex
will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume
176-A of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of
the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.
FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT
24. At the hearing the Court was requested:
(a) by the Agent of the Government to "hold that there ha[d]
been no breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in the
instant case";
(b) by the Delegate of the Commission to "conclude that in the
instant case there ha[d] been a breach of Article 8 (art. 8)"; and
(c) by counsel for the applicant to "find the French
Government in breach in this case".
AS TO THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 8 (art. 8)
25. Mr Kruslin claimed that in the instant case there had been
a breach of Article 8 (art. 8), which provides:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and
family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with
the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with
the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests
of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of
the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others."
The Government disputed that submission, while the Commission
agreed with it in substance.
26. Although it was Mr Terrieux's line that they were tapping,
the police in consequence intercepted and recorded several of the
applicant's conversations, and one of these led to proceedings
being taken against him (see paragraphs 9 - 10 above). The
telephone tapping therefore amounted to an "interference by a
public authority" with the exercise of the applicant's right to
respect for his "correspondence" and his "private life" (see the
Klass and Others judgment of 8 September 1978, Series A no. 28,
p. 21, з 41, and the Malone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A
no. 82, p. 30, з 64). The Government did not dispute this.
Such an interference contravenes Article 8 (art. 8) unless it
is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the
legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 (art. 8-2) and
furthermore is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to
achieve them.
A. "In accordance with the law"
27. The expression "in accordance with the law", within the
meaning of Article 8 з 2 (art. 8-2), requires firstly that the
impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also
refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it
should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be
able to foresee its consequences for him, and compatible with the
rule of law.
1. Whether there was a legal basis in French law
28. It was a matter of dispute before the Commission and the
Court whether the first condition was satisfied in the instant
case.
The applicant said it was not. Article 368 of the Criminal
Code, he claimed, prohibited telephone tapping in principle (see
paragraph 18 above). It took precedence over Article 81 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, which did not expressly authorise
telephone tapping and required the investigating judge to behave
"in accordance with the law" - and therefore in accordance, inter
alia, with Article 368 of the Criminal Code - when ordering any
steps "useful for establishing the truth" (see paragraph 17
above). Articles 151 and 152 (ibid.) made no difference, he added,
as investigating judges could not delegate to senior police
officers powers which they did not have themselves. The Delegate
of the Commission agreed as to the latter point.
In the Government's submission, there was no contradiction
between Article 368 of the Criminal Code and Article 81 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, at least not if regard was had to the
drafting history of the former (see paragraph 18 above). The Code
of Criminal Procedure, they argued, did not give an exhaustive
list of the investigative means available to the investigating
judge - measures as common as the taking of photographs or
fingerprints, shadowing, surveillance, requisitions,
confrontations between witnesses, and reconstructions of crimes,
for example, were not mentioned in it either (see paragraph 15
above). The provisions added to Article 81 by Articles 151 and 152
were supplemented in national case-law (see paragraphs 17 and
20 - 21 above). By "law" as referred to in Article 8 з 2
(art. 8-2) of the Convention was meant the law in force in a given
legal system, in this instance a combination of the written law -
essentially Articles 81, 151 and 152 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure - and the case-law interpreting it.
The Delegate of the Commission considered that in the case of
the Continental countries, including France, only a substantive
enactment of general application - whether or not passed by
Parliament - could amount to a "law" for the purposes of
Article 8 з 2 (art. 8-2) of the Convention. Admittedly the Court
had held that "the word "law" in the expression "prescribed by
law" cover[ed] not only statute but also unwritten law" (see the
Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30,
p. 30, з 47, the Dudgeon judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A
no. 45, p. 19, з 44, and the Chappell judgment of 30 March 1989,
Series A no. 152, p. 22, з 52), but in those instances the Court
was, so the Delegate maintained, thinking only of the common-law
system. That system, however, was radically different from, in
particular, the French system. In the latter, case-law was
undoubtedly a very important source of law, but a secondary one,
whereas by "law" the Convention meant a primary source.
29. Like the Government and the Delegate, the Court points
out, firstly, that it is primarily for the national authorities,
notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see,
among many other authorities, the Malone judgment previously
cited, Series A no. 82, p. 36, з 79, and the Eriksson judgment of
22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, p. 25, з 62). It is therefore not
for the Court to express an opinion contrary to theirs on whether
telephone tapping ordered by investigating judges is compatible
with Article 368 of the Criminal Code. For many years now, the
courts - and in particular the Court of Cassation - have regarded
Articles 81, 151 and 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as
providing a legal basis for telephone tapping carried out by a
senior police officer (officier de police judiciaire) under a
warrant issued by an investigating judge.
Settled case-law of this kind cannot be disregarded. In
relation to paragraph 2 of Article 8 (art. 8-2) of the Convention
and other similar clauses, the Court has always understood the
term "law" in its "substantive" sense, not its "formal" one; it
has included both enactments of lower rank than statutes (see, in
particular, the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment of 18 June
1971, Series A no. 12, p. 45, з 93) and unwritten law. The Sunday
Times, Dudgeon and Chappell judgments admittedly concerned the
United Kingdom, but it would be wrong to exaggerate the
distinction between common-law countries and Continental
countries, as the Government rightly pointed out. Statute law is,
of course, also of importance in common-law countries. Conversely,
case-law has traditionally played a major role in Continental
countries, to such an extent that whole branches of positive law
are largely the outcome of decisions by the courts. The Court has
indeed taken account of case-law in such countries on more than
one occasion (see, in particular, the {Muller} and Others judgment
of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 20, з 29, the Salabiaku
judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141, pp. 16 - 17, з 29,
and the Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann judgment of
20 November 1989, Series A no. 165, pp. 18-19, з 30). Were it to
overlook case-law, the Court would undermine the legal system of
the Continental States almost as much as the Sunday Times judgment
of 26 April 1979 would have "struck at the very roots" of the
United Kingdom's legal system if it had excluded the common law
from the concept of "law" (Series A no. 30, p. 30, з 47). In a
sphere covered by the written law, the "law" is the enactment in
force as the competent courts have interpreted it in the light, if
necessary, of any new practical developments.
In sum, the interference complained of had a legal basis in
French law.
2. "Quality of the law"
30. The second requirement which emerges from the phrase "in
accordance with the law" - the accessibility of the law - does not
raise any problem in the instant case.
The same is not true of the third requirement, the law's
"foreseeability" as to the meaning and nature of the applicable
measures. As the Court pointed out in the Malone judgment of
2 August 1984, Article 8 з 2 (art. 8-2) of the Convention "does
not merely refer back to domestic law but also relates to the
quality of the law, requiring it to be compatible with the rule of
law". It "thus implies ... that there must be a measure of legal
protection in domestic law against arbitrary interferences by
public authorities with the rights safeguarded by paragraph 1
(art. 8-1) ... Especially where a power of the executive is
exercised in secret, the risks of arbitrariness are evident ...
Undoubtedly ..., the requirements of the Convention, notably in
regard to foreseeability, cannot be exactly the same in the
special context of interception of communications for the purposes
of police investigations"
- or judicial investigations -
"as they are where the object of the relevant law is to place
restrictions on the conduct of individuals. In particular, the
requirement of foreseeability cannot mean that an individual
should be enabled to foresee when the authorities are likely to
intercept his communications so that he can adapt his conduct
accordingly. Nevertheless, the law must be sufficiently clear in
its terms to give citizens an adequate indication as to the
circumstances in which and the conditions on which public
authorities are empowered to resort to this secret and potentially
dangerous interference with the right to respect for private life
and correspondence.
... [In its judgment of 25 March 1983 in the case of Silver
and Others the Court] held that "a law which confers a discretion
must indicate the scope of that discretion", although the detailed
procedures and conditions to be observed do not necessarily have
to be incorporated in rules of substantive law (ibid., Series A
no. 61, pp. 33 - 34, з 88 - 89). The degree of precision required
of the "law" in this connection will depend upon the particular
subject-matter ... Since the implementation in practice of
measures of secret surveillance of communications is not open to
scrutiny by the individuals concerned or the public at large, it
would be contrary to the rule of law for the legal discretion
granted to the executive"
- or to a judge -
"to be expressed in terms of an unfettered power.
Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such
discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner
of its exercise with sufficient clarity ... to give the individual
adequate protection against arbitrary interference." (Series A
no. 82, pp. 32 - 33, з 67 - 68)
31. The Government submitted that the Court must be careful
not to rule on whether French legislation conformed to the
Convention in the abstract and not to give a decision based on
legislative policy. The Court was therefore not concerned, they
said, with matters irrelevant to Mr Kruslin's case, such as the
possibility of telephone tapping in relation to minor offences or
the fact that there was no requirement that an individual whose
telephone had been monitored should be so informed after the event
where proceedings had not in the end been taken against him. Such
matters were in reality connected with the condition of "necessity
in a democratic society", fulfilment of which had to be reviewed
in concrete terms, in the light of the particular circumstances of
each case.
32. The Court is not persuaded by this argument. Since it must
ascertain whether the interference complained of was "in
accordance with the law", it must inevitably assess the relevant
French "law" in force at the time in relation to the requirements
of the fundamental principle of the rule of law. Such a review
necessarily entails some degree of abstraction. It is none the
less concerned with the "quality" of the national legal rules
applicable to Mr Kruslin in the instant case.
33. Tapping and other forms of interception of telephone
conversations represent a serious interference with private life
and correspondence and must accordingly be based on a "law" that
is particularly precise. It is essential to have clear, detailed
rules on the subject, especially as the technology available for
use is continually becoming more sophisticated.
Before the Commission (supplementary observations of 4 July
1988, pages 4 - 7, summarised in paragraph 37 of the report) and,
in a slightly different form, before the Court, the Government
listed seventeen safeguards which they said were provided for in
French law (droit). These related either to the carrying out of
telephone tapping or to the use made of the results or to the
means of having any irregularities righted, and the Government
claimed that the applicant had not been deprived of any of them.
34. The Court does not in any way minimise the value of
several of the safeguards, in particular the need for a decision
by an investigating judge, who is an independent judicial
authority; the latter's supervision of senior police officers and
the possible supervision of the judge himself by the Indictment
Division, by trial courts and courts of appeal and, if need be, by
the Court of Cassation; the exclusion of any "subterfuge" or
"ruse" consisting not merely in the use of telephone tapping but
in an actual trick, trap or provocation; and the duty to respect
the confidentiality of relations between suspect or accused and
lawyer.
It has to be noted, however, that only some of these
safeguards are expressly provided for in Articles 81, 151 and 152
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Others have been laid down
piecemeal in judgments given over the years, the great majority of
them after the interception complained of by Mr Kruslin (June
1982). Some have not yet been expressly laid down in the case-law
at all, at least according to the information gathered by the
Court; the Government appear to infer them either from general
enactments or principles or else from an analogical interpretation
of legislative provisions - or court decisions - concerning
investigative measures different from telephone tapping, notably
searches and seizure of property. Although plausible in itself,
such "extrapolation" does not provide sufficient legal certainty
in the present context.
35. Above all, the system does not for the time being afford
adequate safeguards against various possible abuses. For example,
the categories of people liable to have their telephones tapped by
judicial order and the nature of the offences which may give rise
to such an order are nowhere defined. Nothing obliges a judge to
set a limit on the duration of telephone tapping. Similarly
unspecified are the procedure for drawing up the summary reports
containing intercepted conversations; the precautions to be taken
in order to communicate the recordings intact and in their
entirety for possible inspection by the judge (who can hardly
verify the number and length of the original tapes on the spot)
and by the defence; and the circumstances in which recordings may
or must be erased or the tapes be destroyed, in particular where
an accused has been discharged by an investigating judge or
acquitted by a court. The information provided by the Government
on these various points shows at best the existence of a practice,
but a practice lacking the necessary regulatory control in the
absence of legislation or case-law.
36. In short, French law, written and unwritten, does not
indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise
of the relevant discretion conferred on the public authorities.
This was truer still at the material time, so that Mr Kruslin did
not enjoy the minimum degree of protection to which citizens are
entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society (see the
Malone judgment previously cited, Series A no. 82, p. 36, з 79).
There has therefore been a breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the
Convention.
B. Purpose and necessity of the interference
37. Having regard to the foregoing conclusion, the Court, like
the Commission (see paragraph 77 of the report), does not consider
it necessary to review compliance with the other requirements of
paragraph 2 of Article 8 (art. 8-2) in this case.
II. Application of Article 50 (art. 50)
38. By Article 50 (art. 50),
"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a
legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party
is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations
arising from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the
said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the
consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the
Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured
party."
The applicant claimed, firstly, compensation in the amount of
1,000,000 French francs (FRF) in respect of his fifteen-year
prison sentence (see paragraph 13 above), which he alleged to be
the direct result of the breach of Article 8 (art. 8) as the
telephone tapping complained of had led to the decision to take
proceedings against him. He also sought reimbursement of lawyer's
fees and expenses: FRF 20,000 in order to prepare his appeal on
points of law against the Indictment Division's judgment of
16 April 1985 in the Gerbe d'Or case (see paragraph 12 above) plus
FRF 50,000 for his defence at the Haute-Garonne Assize Court and
the Court of Cassation in the Baron case (see paragraph 14 above).
He made no claim for the proceedings at Strasbourg, as the
Commission and the Court had granted him legal aid.
The Government and the Delegate of the Commission expressed no
opinion on the matter.
39. In the circumstances of the case the finding that there
has been a breach of Article 8 (art. 8) affords Mr Kruslin
sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged damage; it is
accordingly unnecessary to award pecuniary compensation.
40. The costs and expenses incurred by the applicant in the
Baron case cannot be taken into account by the Court; no doubt the
telephone tapping was, as he pointed out, made use of in the two
cases successively, but the Commission and the Court have only
been concerned with considering its compatibility with the
Convention in connection with the Gerbe d'Or case (see
paragraph 14 in fine above).
The sum of FRF 20,000 sought in respect of the latter case,
however, is relevant and not excessive, and it should therefore be
awarded to him.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8
(art. 8);
2. Holds that this judgment in itself constitutes sufficient
just satisfaction as to the alleged damage;
3. Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant
20,000 (twenty thousand) French francs in respect of costs and
expenses;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the claims under Article 50
(art. 50).
Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public
hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 24 April
1990.
Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL
President
Signed: {Marc-Andre} EISSEN
Registrar
|
