31
KLASS AND OTHERS v. GERMANY JUGDMENT
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PINHEIRO FARINHA
public authority with the exercise of that individual’s right to respect for his
private and family life and his correspondence.
So far as the case sub judice is concerned, on the one hand, the applicants
do not know whether the G 10 has in fact been applied to them (see
paragraph 12 of the judgment) and, on the other hand, the respondent
Government state - and we have no reason to doubt this statement - that "at
no time have surveillance measures provided for by the Act passed in
pursuance of Article 10 of the Basic Law been ordered or implemented
against the applicants.
The applicants have not been subjected to such measures either as
persons suspected of one or more of the offences specified in the Act or as
third parties within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph 2,
of the G 10.
There is also no question of the applicants’ having been indirectly
involved in a surveillance measure directed against another person - at least,
not in any fashion which would have permitted their identification.
Finally, there is no question of the applicants’ having been subjected to
surveillance by mistake - for example through confusion over a telephone
number -, since in such cases the person concerned is notified of the
surveillance measure" (see paragraph 13 of the judgment).
The Court may take into consideration only the case of the applicants
(Engel and others judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 43, para.
106) and not the situation of other persons not having authorised them to
lodge an application with the Commission in their name.
These are the reasons which lead me to conclude, as the Court does, that
the case sub judice does not disclose any violation of the Convention.