resolution DH (99) 127
CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF 30 JULY 1998
IN THE CASE OF VALENZUELA CONTRERAS AGAINST SPAIN
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 February 1999
at the 659th 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 Valenzuela Contreras case delivered on 30 July 1998 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 27671/95) against Spain, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 May 1995 under Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Cosme Valenzuela Contreras, a Spanish national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint that the monitoring of his telephone line in connection with certain criminal proceedings had infringed his right to respect for his private life;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 29 May 1997;
Whereas in its judgment of 30 July 1998 the Court:
- held, unanimously, that it had no jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months 1 500 000 pesetas in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 7.5% would be payable on this sum from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;
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 30 July 1998, having regard to Spain’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 measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that on 16 September 1998, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 30 July 1998,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Spain, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (99) 127
Information provided by the Government of Spain
during the examination of the Valenzuela Contreras case
by the Committee of Ministers
The legislation in force at the time of the events that led to the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights was amended by Implementing Act No. 4/1988 of 25 May 1988, which governs telephone monitoring in Spain. Since its judgment (Auto) of 18 June 1992, the Supreme Court has applied and interpreted the new version of Article 579 of the Code of Criminal Procedure introduced by that act in accordance with the meaning of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Supreme Court’s case law on Article 579 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be modified or altered, as it is based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, pursuant to Article 10.2 of the Spanish Constitution, which requires fundamental rights to be interpreted in accordance with the relevant international instruments. In its judgment No. 303/93 of 25 October 1993, the Spanish Constitutional Court made clear that “the case law of the European Court … shall constitute a criterion for the interpretation of constitutional norms which protect fundamental rights”. In that judgment, the Constitutional Court also concluded that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights was directly applicable in the Spanish legal order (see also the Castells case (Resolution DH (95) 93)).
In addition, a Spanish translation of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has been published in the Boletín de Información del Ministerio de Justicia and also forwarded to the Constitutional Court and the General Judicial Council.
The Government of Spain concludes that the measures taken will prevent the repetition of any violations similar to those found in this case and that Spain has therefore fulfilled its obligations under Article 53 of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy