Heglas v Czech Republic - 5935/02 [2011] ECHR 1557 (08 August 2011)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns interference in the applicant’s private life, due to actions taken by the authorities in the context of a criminal investigation (violation of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

The case concerns violations of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life due to acts carried out by the authorities in the course of a criminal investigation against him in January and February 2000, which were not provided in internal law: it concerns first, obtaining extracts from the list of his telephone calls, and secondly recording one of his conversations by means of a body-planted listening device (violation of Article 8).

The European Court found that the finding of the violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

1) Obtaining of lists of telephone calls in the course of criminal investigations: The European Court noted that subsequent to the facts at issue, the legal basis allowing the authorities to obtain lists of calls in the context of criminal investigations had been inserted in Article 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which entered into force on 01/01/2002) (see §66 of the judgment).

Article 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that, where it is necessary in order to clarify important facts in criminal proceedings, a judge can make an order granting access to telecommunication data. The order must be reasoned and given in writing (see §33 of the judgment).

2) Recording conversations by means of listening devices concealed on people’s bodies: On 01/01/2002, Articles 158b and 158d of the Code of Criminal Procedure came into force, which set out the conditions for the use of monitoring devices (called “operative investigative means”) by the police in the course of proceedings concerning intentional criminal offences. Accordingly, authorisation by a prosecutor is needed for audio and video surveillance of persons and objects; authorisation by a judge is needed if home or correspondence are affected. Authorisation can only be given for a limited period of six months (renewable once), and on the basis of a written application stating the facts of the alleged crime and, if known, data on the persons to be placed under surveillance. In case of emergency and provided that neither home nor correspondence are affected, police surveillance may start without authorisation, which must nevertheless be obtained within 48 hours; otherwise the recordings must be destroyed. Recordings may only be used as evidence in court proceedings if they are accompanied by documentary proof that they have been legally obtained, and if recordings turn out to be useless in criminal proceedings they must be destroyed. Conversations between an accused and his lawyer cannot be recorded. Furthermore, on 13/05/2004 the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office published an interpretation advice (No. 2/2004) aimed at unifying the interpretation of the legal provisions concerning the use of recorded conversations as evidence in criminal proceedings.

3) Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgment was translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.justice.cz).

The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the Czech Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 September 2011 at the 1120th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
-	-	1 018 EUR	1 018 EUR
Paid on 21/09/2007

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Heglas v Czech Republic - 5935/02 [2011] ECHR 1557 (08 August 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1557.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1557