H A L F O R D ve r s u s U N I T E D K I N G D O M
51
50
H A L F O R D OVÁ p r ot i S P O J E N É M U K R Á ¼ OV S T V U
54. The Government explained that they could not disclose whether or
54. Vláda vysvetlila, e nemohla odhali, èi dolo k odpoèúvaniu hovo-
rov uskutoènených z domáceho telefónu pani Halfordovej, alebo nie, preto-
e nález, na ktorý má zmocnenie tribunál o odpoèúvaní komunikácií pod¾a
zákona z roku 1985, bol úmyselne formulovaný tak, e neodhalil, èi dolo
k odpoèúvaniu na verejnom telekomunikaènom systéme, ktoré je povolené
pod¾a zákona, alebo èi k takému odpoèúvaniu fakticky nedolo. Mohla
vak potvrdi, e tribunál nezistil niè, èo by bolo v rozpore s èasami 2 a 5
zákona z roku 1985 v prípade pani Halfordovej (pozri odseky 19 a 32 ).
not there had been any interception of calls made from the telephone in
Ms Halfords home, since the finding which the Interception of Communi-
cations Tribunal was empowered to make under the 1985 Act was delibera-
tely required to be couched in terms which did not reveal whether there
had been an interception on a public telecommunications system properly
authorised under the Act or whether there had in fact been no intercep-
tion. They could, however, confirm that the Tribunal was satisfied that
there had been no contravention of sections 2 to 5 of the 1985 Act in Ms
Halfords case (see paragraphs 19 and 32 above).
55. The Commission, applying its case-law, required the applicant to
establish that there was a reasonable likelihood that calls made on her
home telephone had been intercepted (see, for example, the Report of the
Commission on application no. 12175/86, Hewitt and Harman v. the
United Kingdom, 9 May 1989, Decisions and Reports 67, pp. 98-99, §§ 29-
32). Having reviewed all the evidence, it did not find such a likelihood
established.
55. Komisia apikujúc svoju judikatúru vyadovala, aby iadate¾ka preu-
kázala, e existovala dostatoèná pravdepodobnos, e hovory uskutoène-
né z jej domáceho telefónu boli odpoèúvané (pozri napr. Správa Komisie
v sanosti è. 12175/86, Hewitt a Harman v. Spojené krá¾ovstvo z 9. mája
1989, Rozhodnutia a Správy 67, str. 98-99, odsek 29-32). Po preskúmaní
vetkých dôkazov takú pravdepodobnos nezistila.
56. The Court recalls that in the above-mentioned Klass and Others
case it was called upon to decide inter alia whether legislation which empo-
wered the authorities secretly to monitor the correspondence and telepho-
ne conversations of the applicants, who were unable to establish whether
such measures had in fact been applied to them, amounted to an interfe-
rence with their Article 8 rights. The Court held in that case that in the
mere existence of the legislation itself there is involved, for all those to
whom the legislation could be applied, a menace of surveillance; this
menace necessarily strikes at freedom of communication between users of
the postal and telecommunication services and thereby constitutes an
interference by a public authority with the exercise of the applicants right
to respect for private and family life and correspondence (p. 21, § 41).
56. Súd pripomína, e v uvedenom prípade Klass a iní bol poiadaný
okrem iného rozhodnú, èi legislatíva, ktorá zmocnila úrady tajne monito-
rova korepondenciu alebo telefonické hovory iadate¾ov, ktorí neboli
schopní zisti, èi sa také opatrenia v skutoènosti voèi nim uplatnili, pred-
stavovala zasahovanie do ich práv pod¾a èlánku 8. Súd v tom prípade po-
tvrdil, e u samotná existencia legislatívy predstavuje pre vetkých
tých, voèi ktorým by sa táto legislatíva mohla poui hrozbu dozoru; to-
to nebezpeèenstvo nevyhnutne útoèí na slobodu komunikácie medzi pou-
ívate¾mi potových a telekomunikaèných sluieb a tak predstavuje ,zasa-
hovanie tátnych orgánov do výkonu práva saovate¾ov na repektovanie
súkromného a rodinného ivota a korepondencie (str. 21, odsek 41).
The Court further recalls that in its above-mentioned Malone
judgment, in addition to finding that one telephone conversation to which
the applicant had been a party had been intercepted at the request of the
police under a warrant issued by the Home Secretary, it observed that the
existence in England and Wales of laws and practices which permit and
establish a system for effecting secret surveillance of communications
amounted in itself to an interference (pp. 30-31, § 64).
Súd ïalej pripomína, e v uvedenom rozsudku Malone okrem zistenia,
e jeden telefonický rozhovor, ktorého úèastníkom bol iadate¾, bol odpo-
èúvaný na poiadanie polície s povolením vydaným ministerstvom vnútra,
zaznamenal, e existencia zákonov a praxe v Anglicku a Walese, ktoré do-
vo¾ujú a ustanovujú systém na vykonávanie tajného dozoru komunikácii
predstavoval sám osebe ,zasahovanie (str. 30-31, odsek 64).
57. However, the essence of Ms Halfords complaint, unlike that of the
applicants in the Klass and Others case (cited above, p. 20, § 38), was not
that her Article 8 rights were menaced by the very existence of admitted
law and practice permitting secret surveillance, but instead that measures
of surveillance were actually applied to her. Furthermore, she alleged that
the Merseyside police intercepted her calls unlawfully, for a purpose unaut-
horised by the 1985 Act (see paragraphs 26 and 53 above).
57. Podstatou sanosti pani Halfordovej vak na rozdiel od saovate-
¾ov v prípade Klass a iní (u citované, str. 20, odsek 38) nebolo, e jej práva
vyplývajúce z èlánku 8 boli ohrozené samotnou existenciou zákona a praxe
dovo¾ujúcej tajný doh¾ad, ale e opatrenia doh¾adu sa voèi nej skutoène
pouili. Ïalej pod¾a nej merseysidská polícia odpoèúvala jej hovory nezá-
konne s cie¾om nepovoleným zákonom z roku 1985 (pozri odseky 26 a 53).
In these circumstances, since the applicants complaint concerns speci-
Za týchto okolností, keïe sanos iadate¾ky sa týka pecifických
