Kruslin v France (Series A No 176-B; Application No 11801/85) European Court of Huma Rights (1990) 12 EHRR 547 24 APRIL 1990

Telephone Tapping

FACTS:

The applicant was convicted of armed robbery. A decisive piece of evidence against him was a tape recording of his telephone conversation with another person who was tapped in relation to other proceedings. The applicant filed this suit alleging that the recording of his telephone conversations violated Article 8 of the Convention. The court held that Title 8 of the Convention was violated.

1. Private Life.

Even though the authorities tapped the telephone of a third party, the tapping amounted to an 'interference by a public authority' with respect to the applicant's right for correspondence and private life. Hence, this tapping violates the Continental system. This Court, however, cannot express an opinion with regards to French law because that should be settled by the French courts

The following cases were referred to in the judgment:

1. CHAPPELL v UNITED KINGDOM, (1990) 12 EHRR 36.
2. DE WILDE, OOMS AND VERSYP v BELGIUM (NO 1), 1 EHRR 373.
3. DUDGEON v UNITED KINGDOM, (1982) 4 EHRR 149.
4. ERIKSSON v SWEDEN, judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A, No 156.
5. GOLDER v UNITED KINGDOM, 1 EHRR 524.
6. KLASS v GERMANY, 2 EHRR 214.
7. MALONE V UNITED KINGDOM, (1985) 7 EHRR 14.
8. MARKT INTERN VERLAG GmbH AND BEERMANN v GERMANY, (1990) 12 EHRR 161.
9. MULLER v SWITZERLAND, judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A, No 133.
10. SALABIAKU v FRANCE, judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A, No 141-A.
11. SILVER v UNITED KINGDOM, (1983) 5 EHRR 347.
12. THE SUNDAY TIMES v UNITED KINGDOM, 2 EHRR 245.

| Return to Topic Menu | Return to Main Menu |