Case no 23413/94
The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 (Art. 10, 11) of the Convention in relation to surveillance and interception of telephone calls and mail of members of the BNTVA (in particular to specific incidents involving the Chairman of the BNTVA). She claims, inter alia, that that surveillance infringes those members' freedom of expression and association and suggests that she has been subject to interception and surveillance also.
The Government submit, inter alia, that the applicant has not adduced sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of interception of her telephones or mail.
The Commission recalls that, though the applicant raises these complaints under Articles 10 and 11 (Art. 10, 11) of the Convention, the lex specialis as regards alleged interference with communication of information or ideas by correspondence is Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention and it is further recalled that communication by telephone is included in that concept of "correspondence" (No. 8231/78, Dec. 12.10.83, D.R. 49 p. 5 and Eur. Court H.R., A v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-B). Therefore, the Commission finds that these complaints fall to be considered under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.
However, the Commission has examined the submissions of the applicant as to the alleged interceptions and considers that the applicant has not adduced sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the applicant's communications have been intercepted (loc. cit. No. 12015/86, p. 119). Therefore, the Commission finds that, even assuming exhaustion of domestic remedies, the applicant's complaints in this respect are unsubstantiated and, as such, manifestly ill-founded. The Commission must therefore declare this complaint of the applicant inadmissible pursuant to Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.back