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 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
in the Malone case, delivered on 2 August 1984 and 26 April 1985 and
transmitted the same days to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case had its origins in an application against the
United Kingdom lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights
under Article 25 (art. 25) of the convention by a United Kingdom
citizen Mr James Malone complaining of the admitted interception
of a telephone conversation to which he had been a party,
stating his belief that, at the behest of the police, his
correspondence and also that of his wife had been intercepted,
his telephone lines "tapped" and, in addition, his telephone "metered"
by a device recording all the numbers dialled and claiming that by
reason of these matters, and of relevant law and practice in England
and Wales, he had been the victim of breaches of Articles 8 and 13
(art. 8, art. 13) of the convention;
Recalling that the case had been brought before the Court by the
European Commission of Human Rights;
Whereas in its judgment of 2 August 1984 the Court:
- Held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of
the convention;
- Held by sixteen votes to two that it was not necessary also to examine
the case under Article 13 (art. 13);
- Held unanimously that the question of the application of Article 50
(art. 50) was not ready for decision;
Whereas in its judgment of 26 April 1985, the Court having been
notified of a friendly settlement reached between the Government and
the applicant in respect of the latter's claims under Article 50
(art. 50) of the convention, and having found that the settlement
reached was "equitable", unanimously decided to strike the case out of
its list;
Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of Article 54
(art. 54) of the convention";
Recalling that Rule 48, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court of the
European Court of Human Rights provides that the striking out of a
case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President
shall forward to the Committee of Ministers in order to allow it to
supervise, in accordance with Article 54 (art. 54) of the convention,
the execution of any undertaking which may have been attached to the
discontinuance or solution of the matter;
Having invited the Government of the United Kingdom, having regard to
its obligations under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention, to
inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the
judgment of 2 August 1984;
Having also invited the Government of the United Kingdom to inform it
of the measures taken for the execution of the undertakings attached
to the solution of the claims concerning Article 50 (art. 50) as noted
in the judgment of 26 April 1985;
Whereas, during the examination of this case by the Committee of
Ministers, the Government of the United Kingdom informed the Committee
of Ministers of the measures taken, which information appears at the
appendix to this resolution,
Declares, having taken note of this information, that it has exercised
its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the convention in this
case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (86) 1
Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom during
the examination of the Malone case before the Committee of Ministers
The Interception of Communications Act has been passed by both
Houses of the British Parliament and received Royal Assent on
25 July 1985. It came into force on 10 April 1986. The Act brings
United Kingdom law on the interception of communications into
compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted
by the judgment of the European Court. It does so by establishing a
comprehensive statutory framework governing the interception of
communications on the public postal and telecommunications systems, in
which the grounds for authorised interception are expressly set out,
and in which any interception carried out other than in accordance
with the Act's provisions is made a criminal offence.
The Government of the United Kingdom has paid to the applicant the sum
mentioned in the friendly settlement reached between the Government
and the applicant in respect of the latter's claims under Article 50
(art. 50) of the convention.