34
MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
to make available to the police in connection with the investigation of crime
information obtained from metering. On the other hand, no rule of domestic
law makes it unlawful for the Post Office voluntarily to comply with a
request from the police to make and supply records of metering (see
paragraph 56 above). The practice described above, including the limitative
conditions as to when the information may be provided, has been made
public in answer to parliamentary questions (ibid.). However, on the
evidence adduced before the Court, apart from the simple absence of
prohibition, there would appear to be no legal rules concerning the scope
and manner of exercise of the discretion enjoyed by the public authorities.
Consequently, although lawful in terms of domestic law, the interference
resulting from the existence of the practice in question was not "in
accordance with the law", within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 8
(art. 8-2) (see paragraphs 66 to 68 above).
88.
This conclusion removes the need for the Court to determine
whether the interference found was "necessary in a democratic society" for
one of the aims enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 8 (art. 8-2) (see,
mutatis mutandis, paragraph 82 above).
C. Recapitulation
89. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 8 (art. 8) in the
applicant’s case as regards both interception of communications and release
of records of metering to the police.
II. ALLEGED BREACH OF ARTICLE 13 (art. 13)
90. The applicant submitted that no effective domestic remedy existed
for the breaches of Article 8 (art. 8) of which he complained and that,
consequently, there had also been a violation of Article 13 (art. 13) which
provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated
shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the
violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
91. Having regard to its decision on Article 8 (art. 8) (see paragraph 89
above), the Court does not consider it necessary to rule on this issue.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)
92. The applicant claimed just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50)
under four heads: (i) legal costs that he was ordered by Sir Robert Megarry
to pay to the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police, assessed at £9,011.00,
(ii) costs, including disbursements, paid by him to his own lawyers in