Date: 25 October 2007
The applicant, Joost van Vondel, is a Dutch national who was born in 1954 and lives in Leeds (United Kingdom). Between January 1989 and August 1994, Mr van Vondel worked as a police officer for the Kennemerland Regional Criminal Intelligence Service (in the Netherlands).
In January 1994 a general parliamentary inquiry was brought into criminal investigation methods in the Netherlands due to a controversy surrounding the North-Holland/Utrecht Interregional Criminal Investigation Team and its methods for fighting organised crime.
Subsequently, in April 1995 the National Police Internal Investigation Department launched a fact-finding inquiry into the Kennemerland Service’s operations between 1990 and 1995, particularly concerning its special investigation methods. The final report of March 1996 was highly critical of that service, notably: it was disorganised; it lacked control; and, basic rules governing informers and infiltrators were frequently breached. The report particularly referred to contacts with one of Mr van Vondel’s informers, Mr R., a Belgian fruit-juice producer. The applicant had requested him to set up a fruit-juice factory in Ecuador, probably with a view to controlling narcotics shipments, without informing his superiors or the public prosecution department. The report further claimed that Mr R.’s statements had been verified through observation, documents and recording devices.
In a judgment of 5 March 2002 Mr van Vondel was convicted of having committed perjury before the general parliamentary inquiry and of having sought to intimidate a potential witness, Mr R.. He was sentenced to a three-month suspended prison sentence.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence), Mr van Vondel complained that the telephone conversations he had had with Mr R. had been recorded with devices provided by the National Police Internal Investigation Department.
The Court was of the opinion that recording the applicant’s conversations had constituted an interference by a public authority with his right to private life and/or correspondence. Although those recordings had been made voluntarily by Mr R., the equipment had been provided by the authorities, who had, on at least one occasion, given him specific instructions as to what information should be obtained from the applicant. The Court was therefore not persuaded that it had ultimately been Mr R. who had been in control of events.
That interference had not been shown by the Government to have had any legal basis. Furthermore, as the National Police Internal Investigation Department had been carrying out a fact-finding inquiry, covert recording of telephone conversations had not been within their investigative powers. The Court did not find it acceptable that the authorities had provided technical assistance which was not governed by rules providing guarantees against arbitrary acts. It was of the opinion that the applicant had been deprived of the minimum degree of protection to which he had been entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society. The Court therefore found that the interference had not been “in accordance with law” and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. As Mr van Vondel had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court held that it was unnecessary to make such an award.
(from the official press-release prepared by the Registry Office of the European Court of Human Rights)
© 2024 Human Rights and Drugs.