Fundamentos destacados: 45. There is no evidence of any warning having been given to Ms Halford, as a user of the internal telecommunications system operated at the Merseyside police headquarters, that calls made on that system would be liable to interception. She would, the Court considers, have had a reasonable expectation of privacy for such calls, which expectation was moreover reinforced by a number of factors. As Assistant Chief Constable she had sole use of her office where there were two telephones, one of which was specifically designated for her private use. Furthermore, she had been given the assurance, in response to a memorandum, that she could use her office telephones for the purposes of her sex-discrimination case (see paragraph 16 above).
46. For all of the above reasons, the Court concludes that the
conversations held by Ms Halford on her office telephones fell within the scope of the notions of «private life» and «correspondence» and that Article 8 (art. 8) is therefore applicable to this part of the complaint.
Versión original en inglés
45. No consta que se advirtiera a la Sra. Halford, como usuaria del sistema interno de telecomunicaciones de la jefatura de policía de Merseyside, de que las llamadas efectuadas a través de dicho sistema podían ser interceptadas. El Tribunal de Justicia considera que la Sra. Halford tenía una expectativa razonable de intimidad en relación con dichas llamadas, expectativa que, además, se veía reforzada por una serie de factores. Como Asistente del Jefe de Policía, ella tenía uso exclusivo de su oficina, donde había dos teléfonos, uno de los cuales estaba específicamente designado para su uso privado. Además, se le había asegurado, en respuesta a un memorando, que podía utilizar los teléfonos de su despacho a efectos de su caso de discriminación por razón de sexo (véase el apartado 16 supra).
46. Por todo ello, el Tribunal de Justicia concluye que las conversaciones mantenidas por la Sra. Halford en los teléfonos de su oficina entraban en el ámbito de los conceptos de «vida privada» y «correspondencia» y que, por tanto, el artículo 8 (art. 8) es aplicable a esta parte de la reclamación.
Versión traducida en español
COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
COURT (CHAMBER)
CASE HALFORD V. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(application no. 20605/92)
In the case of Halford v. the United Kingdom,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with
Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms («the Convention») and the relevant provisions of Rules of Court A, as a Chamber composed of the following judges:
Mr R. BERNHARDT, President,
Mr L.-E. PETTITI,
Mr C. RUSSO,
Mr A. SPIELMANN,
Mr I. FOIGHEL,
Mr J.M. MORENILLA,
Sir John FREELAND,
Mr M.A. LOPES ROCHA,
Mr P. KURIS,
and also of Mr H. PETZOLD, Registrar, and Mr P.J. MAHONEY, Deputy
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 March and 27 May 1997,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-
mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights («the Commission») on 28 May 1996, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47). The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland («the Government») also applied to refer the case to the Court on 27 August 1996 (see paragraph 6 below). It originated in an application (no. 20605/92) against the United Kingdom lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by Ms Alison Halford, a British citizen, on 22 April 1992.
The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby the United Kingdom recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 8, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention (art. 8, art. 10, art. 13, art. 14).
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33
para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicant stated that she wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent her (Rule 30).
[Continúa…]
