(AGENPARL) – gio 16 febbraio 2023 Dear All,
Please find attached press release in respect of Case C-349/21:
A decision authorising telephone tapping need not contain individualised reasons
The obligation to state reasons is not infringed where the decision is based on a detailed and substantiated request from the competent prosecution authority and the reasons for the authorisation can be easily and unambiguously deduced from a cross-reading of the application and the authorisation
Kind regards,
Anna Rizzardi
Trainee
Press & Information Unit
Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald
L-2925 Luxembourg
[curia.europa.eu](https://www.curia.europa.eu/)

Testo Allegato:
Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

PRESS RELEASE No 30
/23

Luxembourg, 16 February 2023

Judgment of the Court in Case C
–
349/21 | HYA
and Others
(
Grounds for authorising telephone tapping
)

A decision authorising telephone tapping need not contain individualised
reasons

The obligation to
state reasons is not infringed where the decision is based on a detailed and substantiated
request from the competent prosecution authority and the reasons for the authorisation can be easily and
unambiguously deduced from a cross
–
reading of the applicatio
n and the aut
h
orisation

In
2017, the President of the Bulgarian Specialised Criminal Court
, based on

applications
from

the investigating prosecutor, authorised the
telephone
tapping of four individuals suspected of
com
mitting serious intentional crimes
.

In giving reasons for his decisions, the President followed the existing national judicial practice of using a pre
–
drafted template
that did not contain individualised reasons and

which
, in essence,
merely stated

that th
e
requirements of the national legislation on telephone tapping, referred to in the template,
had been

.

The four individuals were then charged with participation in an organised criminal gang before the Specialised
Criminal Court heard the case on its
merits
.

Since the content of the recorded conversations is of direct importance
in establishing
the
validity of the indictment,
the Specialised Criminal C
ourt must first
review

the legality of the procedure that led to the authorisation of the
telephone ta
ppin
g
.
In this context, that

reasons given for
decisions authorising telephone tapping is compatible with the Directive on privacy and electronic communications
1
,
read in the light of the Charter of Fu
ndamental Rights of the European Union
.
It has therefore referred to the

Court
for a preliminary ruling
.

In today
â??
s judgment, the Court notes that, as regards the national practice at issue, the judge authorising the
telephone
tapping adopts his decision o
The Court

notes that this practice is
part of the legislative measures adopted by Bulgaria under the Directive on
privacy and electronic communications
,
which provide for the possibility of adopting reasoned judicial decisions

that

have
the effect of restricting the
principle of confidentiality of electronic communications and traffic data,
irective
.

The Court then states that it
may be deemed

that, by signing a pre
–
drafted text according to a template indicating
endors
ent prosecuting authority, while at the same time ensuring that those requirements
contain a specific an

when th
e application
,

in respect of which the authorisation is

1

Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12

July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection
of privacy in the electronic communications sect
or (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L

201, p.

37)

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

Stay Conne
cted
!

granted
,

already contains such a statemen
t of reasons under national law
.

Fur
thermore, the Court states that

once the person concerned has been informed that he or she has been the
subject of telephon
e tapping, the obligation to state reasons laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights
requires that both the person concerned and the court responsible for verifying the legality of the authorisation for
telephone tapping must be able to understand the

reasons for the authorisation. This requires that they
should
have access not only to the authorisation decision, but also to the application of
the authority that requested it
.

The Court further specifies that these persons concerned must be able to unde
rstand easily and unambiguously, by
reading the authorisation and the reasoned application accompanying
it, the precise reasons why that

authorisation
was granted in the light of the factual and legal circumstances characterising the individual case underl
ying the
application. It adds that
when the authorisation decision merely indicates the validity period of authorisation
and
states
the necessary informa
tion

so that the persons concerned
are in a position to

understand that, on the basis of this
information alone, the judge who
granted

the authorisation has, by
endorsing
the reasoning contained in the
application, come to the conclusion that all the l
ega
.

NOTE:

A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the
national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Courtâ??s decision, which is similarly binding on
other nationa
l courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.

Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.

The
full text and abstract

of the judgment is publ
ished on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.

Press contact: Jacques René Zammit
â??
(+352) 4303 3355