Ludi v. Switzerland
![handle is hein.journals/hurcd3 and id is 124 raw text is: HUMAN RIGHTS CASE DIGEST
LUDI V SWITZERLAND
In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 15 June 1992 in the Luidi case, the Court found by
8 votes to 1 that there had been a violation of Article 6(3)[d] in conjunction with Article 6(1)
of the European Convention on Human Rights, in that the applicant had not enjoyed a fair
trial because of excessive restriction of the rights of defence. By contrast, it held unanimously
that the surveillance of the applicant's telephone communications combined with the
intervention of an undercover agent had not breached Article 8.
BACKGROUND TO THE CASE
Principal facts
On 15 March 1984 the Laufen investigating judge, acting on information from the German
police that Mr Liidi was planning to buy drugs in Switzerland, opened a preliminary inquiry
against him and ordered his telephone communications to be intercepted. The police
authorities selected one of their officers to pass himself off as a potential purchaser of cocaine.
After five meetings with this agent, the applicant was arrested on 1 August 1984 and charged
with unlawful trafficking in drugs.
On 4 June 1985 the Laufen District Court found him guilty on seven charges under the
Federal Drugs Law and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment. In order to protect the
police officer's anonymity the court had refused to call him as a witness, on the grounds that
it followed clearly from his reports and the records of the telephone interceptions that the
applicant had, independently of the agent's intervention, intended to act as intermediary in the
supply of substantial quantities of drugs. His appeal against his conviction for two of the
offences was dismissed on 24 October 1985 by the Berne Court of Appeal, which likewise
refused to call the agent as a witness. On 8 April 1986 the Federal Court dismissed Mr LUidi's
public-law appeal. On the other hand it granted his application for a declaration of nullity
inter alia on the grounds that insufficient account had been taken, when passing sentence, of
the effect of the agent's activities. The Berne Court of Appeal subsequently reduced the
sentence to eighteen months' imprisonment, suspended for three years.
Proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights
The application was lodged with the Commission on 30 September 1986 and declared
admissible on 10 May 1990. After attempting unsucessfully to secure a friendly settlement, the
Commisison drew up a report on 6 December 1990 in which it established the facts and
expressed the opinion that there had been violations of Article 8 (10 votes to 4) and by 13
votes to 1 of Article 6(3)[d] in conjunction with Article 6(1).
The case was referred to the Court by the Commission on 8 March 1991, and by the
Government of the Swiss Confederation on 25 April 1991.
SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT
The Government's preliminary objection
Notwithstanding the mitigation of his sentence by the Berne Court of Appeal, the applicant
could claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention.
110](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/hurcd3&div=73&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Ludi v. Switzerland
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most