Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)136[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Elahi & Lewis against United Kingdom
(Elahi, Application No. 30034/04, judgment of 20 June 2006, final on 20 September 2006;
Lewis, Application No. 1303/02, judgment of 25 November 2003, final on 25 February 2004)
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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;
Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns the breach of the right to respect for private life in that tape recordings made from covert listening equipment in the homes of the applicants were not obtained “in accordance with the law” (violations of article 8), and in the Lewis case, the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of article 13) (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 judgments;
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 the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the 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
- general measures preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 879th (DH) meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (22 April 2004) in the Lewis case, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)136
Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of
Elahi & Lewis against the United Kingdom
Introductory case summary
The Elahi case concerns the breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, in that tape-recordings made in 1996 by covert listening equipment in his home and used in evidence against him were not obtained “in accordance with the law”. The rules applicable at the material time (the Home Office Guidelines of 1984) were neither legally binding nor publicly accessible (violation of Article 8).
The Lewis case concerns the use of listening devices hidden by the police at the applicant’s home in 1997 in order to record his conversations. The European Court found that this interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life was not in accordance with the law, since at the relevant time the rules applicable (the Home Office Guidelines of 1984) were neither legally binding nor publicly accessible. Consequently, there was no domestic law regulating the use of such devices by the police (violation of Article 8).
The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).
I.Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Name and application number
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
Elahi
No 30034/04
--
--
6 000 EUR
6 000 EUR
Paid with interest on 03/07/2007
Lewis
No 1303/02
--
--
--
--
No just satisfaction awarded
b) Individual measures
In the Elahi case, it should be noted that the tape-recordings were admissible evidence at the applicant’s trial. The European Court found that this use of secretly taped material did not conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6, paragraph 1. The European Court held that the finding of a violation of Article 8 constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction. The United Kingdom authorities have indicated that the West Yorkshire Police have confirmed that they still hold the recordings in safe storage.
In the Lewis case, the European Court declared the applicant’s Article 6 complaints inadmissible. The applicant did not submit his claims for just satisfaction within the time-limit, and the claims submitted outside the time-limit were incomplete. In these circumstances, the European Court did not award just satisfaction.
In the circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.
II.General measures
The covert surveillance at issue in these cases was not in accordance with the law, as the rules regulating this kind of surveillance at the time (the Home Office Guidelines) were neither legally binding nor publicly accessible. The violation of Article 13, which was found in the Lewis case, was due to the lack of an effective remedy in this respect, since the system of investigation of complaints did not meet the requisite standards of protection against the abuse of authority.
These cases present similarities to that of Govell (Application No. 27237/95, judgment of 19/02/1999), in which general measures have already been adopted. That case and five other similar cases (Khan, P.G. and J.H., Armstrong, Chalkley and Hewitson, judgments of 12/05/2000, 25/09/2001, 16/07/2002, 12/06/2003 and 27/05/2003) were closed by Resolution ResDH(2005)68 adopted by the Committee of Ministers at its 933rd meeting (July 2005).
With respect to the violations of Article 8, following the finding of violations in the Govell case, on 22 February 1999 the relevant part of the Police Act 1997 (Part III) came into force, along with the Code of Practice on Intrusive Surveillance Work. On 25 September 2000 the relevant part of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Part II) came into force. The installation of covert listening devices in residential premises and places of work is now regulated by these two statutory instruments and the Code of Practice, a system which is both legally binding and publicly accessible.
With respect to the violations of Article 13, Part IV of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides for the independent oversight of police powers by a Chief Surveillance Commissioner and establishes an independent tribunal to consider complaints concerning the use of surveillance powers.
Following the entry into force of the Human Rights Act in 2000, violations of the Convention may be considered unlawful under United Kingdom law and challenged before domestic courts.
The Elahi judgment was published in the All England Law Reports at [2006] All ER (D) 201, the European Human Rights Reports at 2007 44 EHRR 30, and the Times Law Reports (21 July 2006).
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 September 2010 at the 1092nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy