30 Jul The police authorities acted lawfully regarding the electronic data and allowed the applicant the right to a defense

In the case of Rook v. Germany (application no. 1586/15, 25/07/2019) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) taken together with Article 6 § 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The case concerned the fairness of criminal proceedings where around 80,000 items of telecommunication surveillance data had been produced and 14 million electronic files seized. 

The applicant, Michael Rook, is a German national who was a senior manager and managing director of a major retailer for consumer electronics in Germany and other European countries. In February 2011 the Augsburg public prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation against Mr Rook for taking bribes in commercial activity. During the investigation wide-ranging telecommunication surveillance was carried out. A total of around 44,970 telephone calls and about 34,000 other data sets were stored. During searches of Mr Rook’s home and of other premises some 14 million electronic files stored on data devices were seized. 

In December 2012 the Regional Court convicted him on 63 counts of taking bribes in commercial activity and sentenced him to five years and three months’ imprisonment.

In February 2014 the Federal Court of Justice quashed the Regional Court’s judgment in respect of three counts of bribery in commercial activity, but dismissed Mr Rook’s further appeal as ill-founded. In June 2014 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit his constitutional complaint.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 and 3 (b) (right to a fair trial and right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of defence), Mr Rook complained that during the criminal proceedings against him he and his counsel had not been provided with sufficient and adequate access to audio files, text messages and electronic files which the authorities had seized during the investigation.

The Court observed that throughout the proceedings the authorities had granted Mr Rook’s lawyer access to the paper investigation file and had provided him with a comprehensive overview of the accusations and evidence. They had also forwarded updates of that file at all times. Mr Rook had not claimed that data, files or documents which formed part of that file were not transmitted to his lawyer early enough in order to allow him to acquaint himself with them before or during the trial.

The Court observed that the authorities had decided to allow for disclosure of the telecommunication surveillance data in its entirety and that Mr Rook’s lawyer had had the possibility to examine it initially in the police premises, and later on additionally in the prison. Moreover, Mr Rook had never specified in what particular manner the restrictions in question had interfered with his ability to defend himself. The Government’s argument that the data could not be examined without a police officer present in order to protect the rights of those whose conversations might have been recorded appeared reasonable

The Court considered it to be sufficient that he had had at least from September 2012, the day he had been provided with an unencrypted CD, until December 2012, the delivery of the judgment, amounting to three and a half months, to analyse the files to identify those which he considered relevant. The mere fact that the court proceedings had already begun had not rendered the preparatory time insufficient. The Court concluded that Mr Rook had had enough time to acquaint himself with the electronic files. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 (b).

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights