Fundamentos destacados: 48. Como han observado los Delegados, el Tribunal, en su apreciación del alcance de la protección ofrecida por el artículo 8, no puede sino tomar nota judicial de dos hechos importantes. El primero consiste en los avances técnicos realizados en los medios de espionaje y, por consiguiente, de vigilancia; el segundo es el desarrollo del terrorismo en Europa en los últimos años. Hoy en día, las sociedades democráticas se ven amenazadas por formas muy sofisticadas de espionaje y por el terrorismo, por lo que el Estado debe poder, para contrarrestar eficazmente tales amenazas, proceder a la vigilancia secreta de los elementos subversivos que actúan en su jurisdicción. Por consiguiente, el Tribunal de Justicia debe admitir que la existencia de una legislación que otorgue poderes de vigilancia secreta sobre el correo, la correspondencia y las telecomunicaciones es, en condiciones excepcionales, necesaria en una sociedad democrática en interés de la seguridad nacional y/o para la prevención de desórdenes o delitos.
Versión traducida al español
48. As the Delegates observed, the Court, in its appreciation of the scope of the protection offered by Article 8 (art. 8), cannot but take judicial notice of two important facts. The first consists of the technical advances made in the means of espionage and, correspondingly, of surveillance; the second is the development of terrorism in Europe in recent years. Democratic societies nowadays find themselves threatened by highly sophisticated forms of espionage and by terrorism, with the result that the State must be able, in order effectively to counter such threats, to undertake the secret surveillance of subversive elements operating within its jurisdiction. The Court has therefore to accept that the existence of some legislation granting powers of secret surveillance over the mail, post and telecommunications is, under exceptional conditions, necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security and/or for the prevention of disorder or crime.
Versión original en inglés
COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
COURT (PLENARY)
CASE OF KLASS AND OTHERS V. GERMANY
(Application no. 5029/71)
In the case of Klass and others,
The European Court of Human Rights, taking its decision in plenary session in application of Rule 48 of the Rules of Court and composed of the following judges:
Mr. G. BALLADORE PALLIERI, President,
Mr. G. WIARDA,
Mr. H. MOSLER,
Mr. M. ZEKIA,
Mr. J. CREMONA,
Mr. P. O’DONOGHUE,
Mr. Thór VILHJÁLMSSON,
Mr. W. GANSHOF VAN DER MEERSCH,
Sir Gerald FITZMAURICE,
Mrs D. BINDSCHEDLER-ROBERT,
Mr. P.-H. TEITGEN,
Mr. G. LAGERGREN,
Mr. L. LIESCH,
Mr. F. GÖLCÜKLÜ,
Mr. F. MATSCHER,
Mr. J. PINHEIRO FARINHA,
and also Mr. H. PETZOLD, Deputy Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11, 13 and 14 March, and then on 30
June, 1, 3 and 4 July 1978,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-
mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case of Klass and others was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter called «the Commission»). The case originated in an application against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Commission on 11 June 1971 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter called «the Convention») by five German citizens, namely Gerhard Klass, Peter Lubberger, Jürgen Nussbruch, Hans-Jürgen Pohl and Dieter Selb.
[Continúa…]
