The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54
(art. 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 Huvig case delivered on 24 April 1990 and
transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application against
France lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights
on 9 August 1984 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by
Mr Jacques Huvig and Mrs Janine Huvig-Sylvestre, French
nationals, who complained of telephone tapping carried out during
a criminal procedure instituted against them;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the
Commission on 16 March 1989;
Whereas in its judgment of 24 April 1990 the Court
unanimously:
- held that there had been a breach of Article 8
(art. 8) of the Convention;
- held that it was unnecessary to apply Article 50
(art. 50);
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of
Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of
the Convention;
Having invited the Government of France to inform it of the
measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of
24 April 1990, having regard to its obligation under Article 53
(art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee
of Ministers, the Government of France gave the Committee
information about the measures taken in consequence of the
judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this
resolution,
Declares, after having taken note of the information
supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its
functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this
case.
Appendix to Resolution DH(92)40
Information provided by the Government of France
during the examination of the Huvig case
by the Committee of Ministers
The act of 10 July 1991 concerning the secrecy of
telecommunications, which came into force on 1 October 1991,
added an Article 100 to the Code of Criminal Procedure relating
to interceptions ordered by the judiciary.
Under Article 100-1 the investigating judge may, if the
apposite penalty is equal or superior to two years imprisonment
and when the investigation requires it, order the interception,
recording and transcription of telecommunications. The decision
to intercept, which must be taken in writing, is not of a
judicial nature and cannot be appealed against. Article 100-1 specifies
that this decision must contain all elements permitting
identification of the line to be intercepted and state the
offence which justifies recourse to interception. In addition
it must specify its duration, which Article 100-2 sets for a
maximum period of four months, renewable only accordingly to the
same conditions.
Article 100-4 provides that each interception and recording
operation must be mentioned on a record which states the date and
the hour on which it started and those when it was terminated.
The transcription of a communication which is of evidential
value must also be recorded in accordance with Article 100-5.
This record becomes part of the file.
Article 100-6 provides that the recordings will be destroyed
on the initiative of the prosecution after expiry of the time
limit for bringing a prosecution and that such destruction be
recorded.
Finally, under the terms of Article 100-7, no telephone line
to a lawyer's office or his home may be intercepted without the
President of the Bar having been previously informed by the
investigating judge.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy