MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
25
AS TO THE LAW
I. ALLEGED BREACH OF ARTICLE 8 (art. 8)
62. Article 8 (art. 8) provides as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right
except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society
in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,
or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
The applicant alleged violation of this Article (art. 8) under two heads. In
his submission, the first violation resulted from interception of his postal
and telephone communications by or on behalf of the police, or from the
law and practice in England and Wales relevant thereto; the second from
"metering" of his telephone by or on behalf of the police, or from the law
and practice in England and Wales relevant thereto.
A. Interception of communications
1. Scope of the issue before the Court
63. It should be noted from the outset that the scope of the case before
the Court does not extend to interception of communications in general. The
Commission’s decision of 13 July 1981 declaring Mr. Malone’s application
to be admissible determines the object of the case brought before the Court
(see, inter alia, the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January
1978, Series A no. 25, p. 63, para. 157). According to that decision, the
present case "is directly concerned only with the question of interceptions
effected by or on behalf of the police" - and not other government services
such as H.M. Customs and Excise and the Security Service - "within the
general context of a criminal investigation, together with the legal and
administrative framework relevant to such interceptions".
2. Whether there was any interference with an Article 8 (art. 8) right
64. It was common ground that one telephone conversation to which the
applicant was a party was intercepted at the request of the police under a
warrant issued by the Home Secretary (see paragraph 14 above). As
telephone conversations are covered by the notions of "private life" and
"correspondence" within the meaning of Article 8 (art. 8) (see the Klass and