KLASS AND OTHERS v. GERMANY JUGDMENT
10
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
26. In their application lodged with the Commission on 11 June 1971, the
applicants alleged that Article 10 para. 2 of the Basic Law and the G 10 - to
the extent that these provisions, firstly, empower the authorities to monitor
their correspondence and telephone communications without obliging the
authorities to inform them subsequently of the measures taken against them
and, secondly, exclude the possibility of challenging such measures before
the ordinary courts - violate Articles 6, 8 and 13 (art. 6, art. 8, art. 13) of the
Convention.
On 18 December 1974, the Commission declared the application
admissible. It found, as regards Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention:
"... only the victim of an alleged violation may bring an application. The applicants,
however, state that they may be or may have been subject to secret surveillance, for
example, in course of legal representation of clients who were themselves subject to
surveillance, and that persons having been the subject of secret surveillance are not
always subsequently informed of the measures taken against them. In view of this
particularity of the case the applicants have to be considered as victims for the purpose
of Article 25 (art. 25)."
27. Having been invited by the Government to consider the application
inadmissible under Article 29 in conjunction with Articles 25 and 27 para. 2
(art. 29+25, art. 29+27-2) of the Convention, the Commission declared in its
report of 9 March 1977 that it saw no reason to accede to this request. In
this connection, the report stated:
"The Commission is ... still of the opinion ... that the applicants must be considered
as if they were victims. Some of the applicants are barristers and it is theoretically
excluded that they are in fact subject to secret surveillance in consequence of contacts
they may have with clients who are suspected of anti-constitutional activities.
As it is the particularity of this case that persons subject to secret supervision by the
authorities are not always subsequently informed of such measures taken against them,
it is impossible for the applicants to show that any of their rights have been interfered
with. In these circumstances the applicants must be considered to be entitled to lodge
an application even if they cannot show that they are victims."
The Commission then expressed the opinion:
- by eleven votes to one with two abstentions, that the present case did
not disclose any breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention
insofar as the applicants relied on the notion "civil rights";
- unanimously, that the present case did not disclose any breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in so far as the applicants relied on the notion
"criminal charge";
- by twelve votes in favour with one abstention, that the present case did
not disclose any breach of Article 8 (art. 8) or of Article 13 (art. 13).
The report contains various separate opinions.