The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found Turkey to be in violation of both Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights (the ‘ECHR’) regarding the use of information obtained by phone tapping in disciplinary proceedings, and of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
The case concerned a telephone surveillance operation in respect of Mr Ünal Karabeyoğlu, a public prosecutor, during a criminal investigation into an illegal organisation known as Ergenekon and use of the information obtained in the context of a separate disciplinary investigation. Intelligence gathered by the Turkish authorities had indicated that Mr Karabeyoğlu was a member of Ergenekon and/or had been providing it with assistance and support. Mr Karabeyoğlu had been cleared of both allegations following a criminal and disciplinary investigation. Mr Karabeyoğlu argued that the telephone tapping undertaken as part of the criminal investigation and its subsequent use in the disciplinary investigation had violated his Article 8 rights – right to respect for private and family life. Mr Karabeyoğlu further alleged he had been denied his Article 13 rights – right to an effective remedy – in that there was no domestic remedy available to review the compatibility of the surveillance measures with the ECHR requirements, with a view to granting Mr Karabeyoğlu appropriate relief if necessary.
The ECtHR found that although the telephone surveillance had interfered with Mr. Karabeyoǧlu’s right to a private and family life, the phone-tapping had been necessary in the legitimate interests of national security and the prevention of crime, and that the order had been grounded on an objectively reasonable suspicion and was carried out in compliance with legislation. However, the further use of information obtained in this manner breached relevant legislation both in that it used the findings for a purpose other than that for which they were obtained, and that it had not been destroyed within 15 days of the conclusion of the initial criminal investigation.
The ECtHR noted also that no domestic remedy of review had been available to Mr. Karabeyoǧlu with which to determine whether the interference had constituted an infringement of his right to respect for private and family life.
For further commentary on this decision please click here.
For a copy of the press release on the judgement please click here.