R.E. v. the United Kingdom (application no. 62498/11) (AİHS md. 8)

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’ne göre, “gözaltına alınan bir kişinin avukatına danışmasının örtülü gözetlenmesine ilişkin hukuki güvenceler, bu kişinin hapiste olduğu zaman diliminde yetersizdir.”

27.10.2015 tarihli R.E. v. the United Kingdom kararı, Kuzey İrlanda’da bir polis memuru cinayeti ile bağlantılı olarak üç kez yakalanan ve gözaltına alınan bir başvurucu ile ilgilidir. Mahkeme, bu başvuruya, avukat-müvekkil telefon görüşmelerinin dinlenmesi alanında geliştirdiği ilkeler yönünden yaklaşmıştır. Bu ilkeler, bir polis merkezindeki avukat-müvekkil danışmasının örtülü gözetlenmesi alanına da uygulanmalıdır. Bu yönden, bu kişinin hapiste olduğu zaman dilimindeki alakalı yerel hukuk hükümleri, başvurucunun avukatına danışmasının korunması bakımından yeterli güvenceler sunmamaktadır. Bu yönden, AİHS md. 8, ihlal edilmiştir.
 
R.E. v. the United Kingdom kararı, “http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/” adresinden erişilebilirdir.

R.E. v. the United Kingdom kararının basın duyurusu,
“http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf?library=ECHR&id=003-5209726-6454540&filename=Judgment%20R.E.%20v.%20the%20United%20Kingdom%20-%20covert%20surveillance%20of%20detainees%27%20consultations.pdf” adresinden erişilebilirdir.

Bu basın duyurusunun özeti, İngilizce haliyle, aşağıdaki gibidir:

R.E. v. the United Kingdom (application no. 62498/11)
 
Legal safeguards regarding covert surveillance of a detainee’s consultations with his lawyer were insufficient at the time of his custody
 
The applicant in the case of R.E. v. the United Kingdom (application no. 62498/11), who was arrested and detained in Northern Ireland on three occasions in connection with the murder of a poliçe officer, complained in particular about the regime for covert surveillance of consultations between detainees and their lawyers and between vulnerable detainees1 and “appropriate adults”2.
In today’s Chamber judgment3 in the case the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights as concerned the covert surveillance of legal consultations; and,
no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention as concerned the covert surveillance of consultations between detainees and their “appropriate adults”.
The case was considered from the standpoint of the principles developed by the Court in the area of interception of lawyer-client telephone calls, which call for stringent safeguards. The Court found that those principles should be applied to the covert surveillance of lawyer-client consultations in a police station. The Court noted that guidelines arranging for the secure handling, storage and destruction of material obtained through such covert surveillance have been implemented since 22 June 2010. However, at the time of Mr. R.E.’s detention in May 2010, those guidelines had not yet been in force. The Court was not therefore satisfied that the relevant domestic law provisions in place at the time had provided sufficient safeguards for the protection of Mr R.E.’s consultations with his lawyer obtained by covert surveillance.
As concerned consultations between a vulnerable detainee and an “appropriate adult”, the Court found that they were not subject to legal privilege and therefore a detainee would not have the same expectation of privacy as for a legal consultation. Furthermore, the Court was satisfied that the relevant domestic provisions, insofar as they related to the possible surveillance of consultations between detainees and “appropriate adults”, were accompanied by adequate safeguards against abuse.