Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohus
07.12.1992
Facts:
The applicants, a group of squatters, were involved in criminal proceedings in the Netherlands related to squatting and suspected acts of arson. During the investigation and trial, the authorities used several investigative measures against them, including telephone tapping and the use of police-held photographs. Moreover, anonymous police informants provided statements that were introduced as evidence in the case. The applicants challenged these procedures, as well as the length of the criminal proceedings and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of certain legal provisions.
Complaint:
The applicants argued that under Article 6 their right to a fair trial was breached due to the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and the use of anonymous police informants’ statements as evidence. Furthermore, they claimed that the criminal law on ‘criminal organization’ was too vague, violating the principle of legal certainty under Article 7. They also claimed that under Article 8 their right to private life and correspondence had been breached, as their photographs were used without consent and their telephone conversations were tapped unlawfully.
Commission's ruling:
The Commission considered the length of the proceedings in light of their complexity and the number of defendants involved. It found that the duration of proceedings was justified and not unreasonable. Regarding the use of anonymous informants’ statements, the Commission noted that the applicants had legal representation and opportunities to challenge the evidence but did not sufficiently do so. The use of such statements was only part of the overall evidence, and the fairness of the trial was maintained. Therefore, there was no violation of Article 6.
Furthermore, regarding the applicants’ claims that the criminal organization provision was vague, the Commission examined the clarity of the law and found it sufficiently precise and foreseeable, allowing individuals to understand what conduct was criminal. Consequently, the provision complied with the legal certainty, and no breach of Article 7 occurred.
Regarding the applicants’ right to private life, the Commission found that the photographs were not taken intrusively, as they were already in official archives, either voluntarily supplied or taken during lawful past arrests, and were used solely to help identify suspects, and not published or misused in any broader way. As for the telephone surveillance, the Commission considered that intercepting the phone lines was in accordance with Dutch law, conducted under judicial authorization, and aimed at preventing serious crime. Therefore, the interference was in accordance with the law and justified under Article 8.