European Court of Human Rights
24 May 2018
Facts
The applicant, Mr. Laurent, was the lawyer of two persons waiting for the outcome of their hearing before the judge. His clients were required to wait under the supervision of a police escort. Mr Laurent noted his professional contact details on a folded piece of paper which he handed over to one of the clients. One of the police officers asked the client to show him the piece of paper, he opened it, read it then handed it back to the client. The applicant criticised the police officer for failing to respect the confidentiality of exchanges with his client. The same scene was repeated with the other client.
Complaint
The applicant alleged that the police officer’s interception of the papers given to his clients constituted a violation of his right to privacy and freedom of correspondence guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court ruled that the interception of the notes by the police officer amounted to interference in the right to respect for the confidentiality of correspondence between a lawyer and his clients. The Court therefore had to determine whether this interference could be justified. Even though the interference pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime, the Court found that the interference was not justified for several reasons. First of all, there was no substantive reason capable of justifying the interception of notes and there were no credible grounds to believe that the correspondence contained something unlawful. Moreover, the lawyer had written and handed over the papers in full view of the police officer, without attempting to conceal his actions.
Therefore, in the absence of any suspicion of an unlawful act, the interception of the papers could not be justified. The Court concluded that Article 8 of the Convention had been violated.