Psaras and Licha v Cyprus
| Jurisdiction | Chipre |
| Date | 15 October 1987 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Cyprus) |
(Loizou, Demetriades and Pikis, JJ)
Human rights Right to respect for privacy and family life Whether extending to search of business premises European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 8 Constitutional provisions protecting human rights Principle that such provisions should be given wide interpretation Comparison of provisions in different constitutions and in the European Convention
Jurisdiction Territorial Crimes allegedly committed in territorial waters of State Presumption that courts of that State have jurisdiction Conspiracy to import drugs
Territory Special territorial regimes Cyprus United Kingdom Sovereign Base Areas Waters off Sovereign Base Areas Whether forming part of Sovereign Base Areas Jurisdiction over crimes committed off coast of Cyprus The law of Cyprus
Summary: The facts:The second appellant, Mr Licha, was one of a number of persons arrested when Cyprus police intercepted three small boats some nine miles from the coast. Two of the boats were found to have been carrying drugs. The first appellant, Mr Psaras, was subsequently arrested in Cyprus in connection with the same offence. Both appellants were convicted by the Assize Court of Larnaca and appealed to the Supreme Court of Cyprus.
One of the first appellant's grounds of appeal was that the Assize Court had wrongly admitted in evidence a note obtained when police had searched his business premises. He maintained that this search had been contrary to Article 15.1 of the Constitution of Cyprus, which provided that every person has the right to respect for his private and family life. The second appellant maintained, inter alia, that the Assize Court had lacked jurisdiction, because the prosecution had failed to prove that the boats had been intercepted in the territorial waters of Cyprus, rather than the waters of the British Sovereign Base Area.
Held (unanimously):The appeals were dismissed.
(1) Article 15.1 of the Constitution was modelled upon Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, and was designed to protect the right to privacy and family life. Its purpose was therefore different from that of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and, unlike the Fourth Amendment, it did not prohibit the search of business premises and the seizure of a note found in a desk diary (pp. 2367).
(2) In the absence of evidence that the waters in which the interception occurred were part of the waters of the Sovereign Base Area, there was a presumption that the courts of Cyprus could exercise jurisdiction in respect of acts taking place within twelve miles off the coast of Cyprus (pp. 2389).
The following are the relevant parts1 of the judgment of the Court, delivered by Pikis J:
[The Supreme Court first set out in detail the facts of the case and then dealt with the appeal of the first appellant:]
Below we shall deal with the appeal of Psaras taking the points raised in the order above outlined. Thereafter, we shall deal with the appeal of Licha.
The Right of Privacy Safeguarded by Article 15.1 of the Constitution.
Article 15.1 reads:
Every person has the right to respect for his. private and family life.
The right to privacy as defined above, is part of the fundamental human rights safeguarded by part II of the Constitution as the inalienable liberty of every human being. Article 35 binds every banch of the Cyprus State including the Judiciary to safeguard the efficient application of the rights entrenched in that part of the Constitution. By way of introduction to the interpretation of this and every other Article of the Constitution safeguarding fundamental human rights, we may note with approval the following passage from the Judgment of Lord Diplock in A-G of Cambia v. Momodou JobeWLRELR, *
A Constitution and in particular that part of it which protects and entrenches fundamental rights and freedoms to which all persons in the State are to be entitled, is to be given generous and purposive construction.
In order to appreciate and explore the arguments raised in connection with the right to privacy, it is necessary to refer to the factual background and circumstances of seizure of the exhibit in question.
Although a search warrant for the search of the premises of the appellant was in existence, having been issued by a member of the District Court of Larnaca, the team of policemen who carried out the search did not invoke the warrant or the authority given thereby to carry out the search. They sought the permission of the employees of Psaras Shipping Agency Limited then in attendance and seemingly in control, to carry out a search of the premises including the office of Psaras, the Manager and the person having control of the company. Permission was given and the premises were subsequently searched. As earlier indicated, the incriminating document recording a certain latitude...
To continue reading
Request your trial