Interim Resolution DH (99) 725
Concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 25 June 1997
in the case of Halford against the United Kingdom
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 1999
at the 688th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Halford case delivered on 25 June 1997 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 20605/92) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 22 April 1992 under Article 25 of the Convention by Ms Alison Halford, a British national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaints in relation to alleged interferences with telephone calls made on her office and home telephones;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission and the Government of the United Kingdom on 28 May 1996 and 27 August 1996 respectively;
Whereas in its judgment of 25 June 1997 the Court:
- held, unanimously, that Article 8 of the Convention was applicable to the complaints concerning both the office and the home telephones, that there had been a violation of Article 8 in relation to calls made on the applicant's office telephones and that there had been no violation of Article 8 in relation to calls made on the applicant's home telephone;
- held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in relation to the applicant's complaint concerning her office telephones;
- held, by eight votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention in relation to the applicant's complaint concerning her home telephone;
- held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to consider the complaints under Article 10 and 14 of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 10 600 pounds sterling and 25 000 pounds sterling, in respect of costs and expenses, together with any VAT which may be chargeable, and that simple interest at an annual rate of 8% should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 25 June 1997, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article 53 of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the provisional measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as those found in the present judgment, while new legislation is being examined (this information appears in the appendix to this interim resolution);
Having satisfied itself that on 9 July 1997, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 25 June 1997,
Decides to continue, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Convention, the examination of the above case once the new legislative measures envisaged by the Government of the United Kingdom enter into force.
Appendix to Interim Resolution DH (99) 725
Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom
during the examination of the Halford case
by the Committee of Ministers
In order to give effect to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 25 June 1997, the Government of the United Kingdom, issued a circular of 23 March 1999 offering guidance on the interception of non-public telecommunication networks. Such guidance is designed to ensure as far as possible and pending the adoption of the new legislation, that such breaches of the Convention, as found by the Court, do not recur.
In the above-mentioned circular, addressed to all government departments and chief officers of police, the Home Office indicates that the lack of a statutory framework for the interception of non-public networks formed the basis of an adverse judgment by the European Court of Human Rights and, hence, invites all the departments involved to ensure that the contents of the circular is made available as necessary to public bodies for which they are responsible.
The guidance mainly recalls that, in order for the interception of private networks to take place while complying with the Halford judgment, it is necessary to address the three elements of the judgment: expectation of privacy, adequate warning that interception might take place and interception in accordance with the law. It is for each operator to decide how best to implement the recommendations and to ensure that they have taken all reasonable steps to address the issues raised by the European Court of Human Rights.
Furthermore, the government has outlined its comprehensive legislative proposals for the field of the interception of communications in a consultation paper “The Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom”, published in June 1999. Among other things, the paper specifically refers to the Halford case and makes proposals for legislative changes to give effect to the judgment. The responses to the consultation paper are being considered with a view to preparing a draft legislative proposal which will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time allows.
The Government of the United Kingdom is of the opinion that this circular will help to prevent new violations of the Convention similar to those found, pending the entry into force of the new legislation.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy