传统上,欧洲人权法院认为被追诉人能够与律师秘密交流是获得有效律师帮助的前提,但在例外情形下可以对这一权利加以限制。在此问题上,欧洲人权法院的判例经历了整体平衡向建立明确规则的转变。R.E.诉英国一案将先前确立的关于窃听案件的标准应用到监听律师会见的情形,监听会见的适用应当限于特殊的犯罪但不必限定对象,应当有明确的期限,而对监听所获的信息,应当设置明确的检验、使用、保存、传播和销毁的规定。R.E.一案对我国的借鉴意义在于,在“三类案件”中有条件地允许监听律师会见,优于普遍拒绝会见。 Traditionally, the European Court of Human Rights held that the accused person’s ability to hold secret clashes with lawyers was a prerequisite for effective lawyer assistance, but this exception could be restricted. On this issue, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has undergone a shift from an overall balance to the establishment of clear rules. In the case of RE v. UK, the previously established standard on eavesdropping cases was applied to interviews with solicitors. The application of interception hearing should be restricted to special crimes but not limited to subjects. There should be a definite deadline, and for the information to be monitored, There should be clear provisions for the inspection, use, preservation, transmission and destruction. The reference to R.E. case for our country lies in the conditional acceptance of interviews with lawyers in the “three types of cases”, which is better than the general refusal to meet.