Phone surveillance in prison did not violate inmates' human rights

A prison inmate had been subjected to phone surveillance in the form of sporadic tapping of private calls. Some calls had also been recorded. He argued that this violated his right to private life and correspondence under Article 8 of the ECHR, and therefore demanded a reduction in his sentence. The Supreme Court referred to established case law from the ECtHR, stating that control measures arising from ordinary and reasonable needs in prisons must be accepted, see Article 8 subsection 2 of the ECHR. The legal basis for phone surveillance in the Execution of Sentences Act was considered to meet the requirements of clarity and predictability derived from ECtHR case law. Legal safeguards with regard to the rules on phone surveillance were in place. The requirement that the interference must be necessary in a democratic society was met. The surveillance served an urgent societal need to prevent disorder and crime and was not more extensive than necessary to reach the goal. However, the recordings lacked a legal basis. This violation was considered rectified by the Supreme Court's recognition.

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Areas of law: Human rights. Section 32 of the Execution of Sentences Act. Article 8 of the ECHR. Article 102 of the Constitution. Nøkkelavsnitt: 48–49, 65, 76, 80, 95

Justices: Normann, Bull, Bergh, Østensen Berglund, Stenvik