Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)79[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Copland against the United Kingdom
(Application No. 62617/00, judgment of 3 April 2007, final on 3 July 2007)
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 the monitoring of the applicant’s telephone, e-mail and internet usage during the course of her employment by a public body without her knowledge and with no domestic law in place to regulate such monitoring (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
- of general measures, preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 1020th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (4 March 2008), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)79
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment
in the case of Copland against the United Kingdom
Introductory case summary
This case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life and her correspondence due to the monitoring of her telephone, e-mail and internet usage around the end of 1999, without her knowledge and on the order of the Deputy Principal of the college of further education where she was employed, which was a state body.
As at the material time, there was no domestic law regulating monitoring by employers of the use of telephone, e-mail and internet by employees, the European Court found that the interference in this case was not in accordance with domestic law (violation of Article 8).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
--
3 000 EUR
6 000 EUR
9 000 EUR
Paid within the time-limit
b) Individual measures
The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Consequently, no other individual measure is considered necessary.
II.General measures
Legislative measures were adopted before the delivery of the judgment (§20). The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides for the regulation inter alia of interception of communications. The Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 (SI No. 2699), made under the 2000 Act, came into force on 24/10/2000. The Regulations set out the circumstances in which employers may record or monitor employee’s communications (such as e-mail or telephone) without the consent of the employee or the other party to the communication. Employers are required to take reasonable steps to inform employees that their communications might be intercepted (§20).
Along with the adoption of the regulations, guidance on monitoring staff usage of technology was put in place. The guidance includes the following:
- The requirement to inform staff of interceptions made under the Regulations without consent;
-For interceptions outside the scope of the Regulations, the consent of the sender and recipient is required; and
- Such consent may be obtained by inserting a clause in staff contracts and by call operators or recorded messages at the beginning of a call stating that calls might be monitored or recorded unless third parties objected.
The judgment was published in the All England Law Reports [2007] All ER (D) 32 (April); European Court of Human Rights [2007] ECHR 253 and The Times Law Reports (TLR), 24 April 2007. A letter drawing attention to the judgment was sent to all further education institutions in England and Wales.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that the United Kingdom have thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy