Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 75
May 2005
Vetter v. France - 59842/00
Judgment 31.5.2005 [Section II]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Placement of microphones by police in a private place in the context of a judicial investigation: violation
Facts: Anonymous witnesses had accused the applicant of homicide. As the applicant regularly went to a friend’s home, the police installed listening devices there with the permission of the investigating judge. On the strength of the conversations that were recorded, the applicant was arrested and prosecuted for homicide. He applied to have the recording declared inadmissible in evidence, arguing in particular that it had not been provided for by law. The domestic courts considered that Articles 81, 100 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided a legal basis for the recording. Articles 100 et seq. lay down specific procedural arrangements for the interception of telephone conversations. Those provisions were enacted after the Kruslin and Huvig judgments in which the Court held that Article 81 – which authorises the investigating judge to take any steps useful for establishing the truth – did not provide a sufficiently precise legal basis for telephone tapping. There are no specific procedural provisions in domestic law governing the installation of listening devices on private property.
Law: Article 8 – The point in issue was whether the use of listening devices was “in accordance with the law”. The bugging of private premises was manifestly not within the scope of Articles 100 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since those provisions concerned the interception of telephone lines. Article 81 of the Code did not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the authorities’ discretion in allowing the monitoring of private conversations (see Kruslin and Huvig v. France, judgments of 24 April 1990) and the respondent Government had not claimed that that shortcoming had been adequately remedied by the relevant case-law. Accordingly, the applicant had not enjoyed the minimum degree of protection to which citizens were entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society.Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant a specified sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy