Conclusion
In spite of the different conditions, all of the five countries which originally signed the Schengen Convention seem to allow and use observation as a method of criminal inquiry, at least to a certain extent. However, the only country in which practically every type of observation is based on statutory provisions is Germany. The interpretation that the Constitutional Court has given to the privacy and the freedom of the individual has led to the situation that Germany now has an extremely detailed and vast system of legislation on breaches of privacy by the state in general and on observation in particular. One could therefore think that the reason for the existence of this German legislation is a typically German one. But is this really true?
The creation of an explicit legislation on police observation powers would also bring more clarity into the undefined terminology used in the Schengen Convention and clarify the legal position and situation in which observing police officers might find themselves (in their own country as well as abroad). Furthermore, it would go some way to controlling the activities of the police in the highly sensitive field between the common interest of criminal investigation and the individual interest of privacy. It leads one to seriously wonder if the use of intensive observation techniques by the police without a statutory basis is in accordance with the right to privacy as guaranteed by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Begründung der Bundesregierung zum EorgKGBundestags-Drucksache 12/989, pp. 39–40 and p. 58
Den Boer, M. Schengen: Intergovernmental Scenario for European Police Co-operation Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh, Department of Politics, 1991, p. 15 Working Paper Series A System of European Police Co-operation after 1992
Blontrock, P., P. de Hert Telefoontap: Tournet, Peureau, Derrien, Hüvig, Kruslin et les autresRW, 1991–1992, pp. 865–871
Deruyck, F. De wet van 11 februari 1991 tot invoeging van een artikel 88bis in het Wetboek van Strafvordering betreffende het opsporen van telefonische mededelingenRW, 1991–1992, pp. 10–15
Favoreu, L., L. Philip Les grandes décisions du conseil constitutionnel Paris, Sirey, 1991; esp. pp. 258–260
Fijnaut, C. De regeling van de politiële samenwerking: implicaties voor de politie in NederlandDelikt en Delinkwent, no. 7, 1991a, pp. 774–776
Fijnaut, C. Observatie en infiltratie, toe aan een wettelijke regeling. In: D.R. Doorenbos, R.J. Verweij (eds.),Hercodificatie Wetboek van Strafvordering: Tijd voor een integrale herziening? Nijmegen, 1991b, pp. 69–85
Fijnaut, C. The Schengen Treaties and European Police Co-operationEuropean Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, nr. 1, 1993, pp. 37–56.
Fijnaut, C., J. Jacobs (eds.) Organized Crime and its Containment Deventer/Boston, 1991.
Gropp, W. Methods of Investigation for Combating Organized CrimeEuropean Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, no. 1, 1993, p. 29
Helsdingen, R. The Development of Surveillance within the Dutch Police. In: C. Fijnaut, R. Hermans (eds.),Police Cooperation in Europe Lochem, 1987, pp. 22–25
Hilger, H. Neues Strafverfahrensrecht durch das OrgKGNStZ, no. 10, 1992, pp. 457–463, esp. p. 462, and no. 11, 1992, pp. 523–526,
Joubert C., H. Bevers La police et l'EuropeRevue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé, no. 4, 1992, pp. 707–724
Kaiser, G., H.-J. Albrecht (eds.) Crime and Criminal Policy in Europe Freiburg, 1990
Klesczewski, D. Das Auskunftsersuchen an die Post: die wohlfeile Dauerkontrolle von Fernmeldeanschlüssen?StV, no. 7, 1993, pp. 382–389
Lisken, H. Befugnis zum Belauschen?ZRP, no. 1993, pp. 121–124
Marx, G.T. Undercover. Police Surveillance in America Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 1988
Meijers, H. et al. Schengen. Internationalisation of Central Chapters of the Law on Aliens, Refugees, Security and the Police W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink — Kluwer Law and Taxation, 1991
Memorie van toelichting (Explanatory statement of the Dutch government)K. 1990–1991, 22 140, no. 3
Mols, G.P.M.F., T.N.B.M. Spronken Europa 1992, een moeras voor verdachte en verdediging? In: G.P.M.F. Mols (ed.),Dissonanten bij het Akkoord van Schengen Deventer, Kluwer, 1990, p. 48
Moréas, G. Un flic de l'Intérieur Paris, Édition$ 1, 1985
Seifert, J. Vom Lauschangriff zum ‘Großen Lauschangriff’Kritische Justiz, 1992, pp. 355–363
Tabarelli, W. Baltica 86, an international exercise on controlled deliveries. In: C. Fijnaut, R. Hermans (eds.),Police Cooperation in Europe Lochem, 1987, pp. 79–84
Van Duyne, P.C., R.F. Kouwenberg, G. Romeijn Misdaadondernemingen Arnhem, Gouda Quint, 1990 RDC, no. 103
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This article is based on a contribution to the 11th International Congress on Criminology, held August 22–27, 1993 in Budapest (Hungary). It was written with financial support of the Legal Research Foundation, which is part of the Netherlands Foundation for Scientific Research (NWO), and of the Dutch Ministry of Internal Affairs. The author would like to thank Chantal Joubert, especially for providing him with information on Luxembourg and France, Prof. dr. Jan Naeyé for his commentary on a previous version of the article and Frank Klaassen for his very special contribution to the presentation in Budapest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bevers, H. Police observation and the 1990 schengen convention. Eur J Crim Policy Res 1, 83–107 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02249467
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02249467