Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/54934.00-en-20060629/view/
Timestamp: 2018-01-21 16:07:37
Document Index: 644527229

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 41', '§ 64', '§ 21', '§ 41', '§ 64', '§ 48', '§ 70', '§ 46', '§ 2', '§ 27', '§ 26', '§ 23', '§ 45', '§ 68', '§ 56', '§ 54', '§ 90', '§ 90', '§ 29', '§ 48', '§ 29', '§ 43', '§ 114', '§ 88', '§ 51', '§ 67', '§ 29', '§ 55', '§ 72', '§ 46', '§ 64', '§ 29', '§ 34', '§ 76', '§ 46', '§ 30', '§ 2', '§ 49', '§ 59', '§ 81', '§ 49', '§ 60', '§ 45', '§ 31', '§ 50', '§ 53', '§ 57', '§ 58', '§ 66', '§ 66', '§ 58', '§ 3', '§ 39', '§ 46', '§ 39', '§ 46', '§ 52']

WEBER AND SARAVIA v. GERMANY About Project
by Gabriele WEBER and Cesar Richard SARAVIA
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr A. Zimmermann, ad hoc judge,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 January 2000,
3. The case concerns several provisions of the Act of 13 August 1968 on Restrictions on the Secrecy of Mail, Post and Telecommunications (Gesetz zur Beschränkung des Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnisses), also called “the G 10 Act”, as modified by the Fight against Crime Act of 28 October 1994 (Verbrechensbekämpfungsgesetz).
4. It notably concerns the extension of the powers of the Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst) with regard to the recording of telecommunications in the course of so-called strategic monitoring, as well as the use (Verwertung) of personal data obtained thereby and their transmission to other authorities. Strategic monitoring is aimed at collecting information by intercepting telecommunications in order to identify and avert serious dangers facing the Federal Republic of Germany, such as an armed attack on its territory or the commission of international terrorist attacks and certain other serious offences (see in detail “Relevant domestic law and practice” below, paragraphs 18 et seq.). In contrast, so-called individual monitoring, that is, the interception of telecommunications of specific persons, serves to avert or investigate certain grave offences which the persons monitored are suspected of planning or having committed.
8. They alleged that certain provisions of the Fight against Crime Act amending the G 10 Act disregarded their fundamental rights, notably the right to secrecy of telecommunications (Article 10 of the Basic Law), the right to self-determination in the sphere of information (Article 2 § 1 and Article 1 § 1 of the Basic Law), freedom of the press (Article 5 § 1 of the Basic Law) and the right to effective recourse to the courts (Article 19 § 4 of the Basic Law).
9. In the applicants’ submission, technological progress made it possible to intercept telecommunications everywhere in the world and to collect personal data. Numerous telecommunications could be monitored, in the absence of any concrete suspicions, with the aid of catchwords which remained secret. Strategic monitoring could then be used in respect of individuals, preventing the press from carrying out effective investigations into sensitive areas covered by the Act.
12. Partly allowing the first applicant’s constitutional complaint, the Federal Constitutional Court held that certain provisions of the Fight against Crime Act were incompatible or only partly compatible with the principles laid down in the Basic Law (see in detail “Relevant domestic law and practice” below, paragraphs 18 et seq.). In particular section 3(1), first and second sentence, point 5, section 3(3), (4), (5), first sentence, (7), first sentence, (8), second sentence, and section 9(2), third sentence of the Act were found to be incompatible with Article 10, Article 5 or Article 19 § 4 of the Basic Law (see paragraphs 26 et seq.). It fixed a deadline until 30 June 2001 for the legislature to bring the situation into line with the Constitution.
13. On 29 June 2001 a new version of the G 10 Act entered into force (BGBl. I 2001, pp. 1254, 2298) and the G 10 Act in its version as amended by the Fight against Crime Act of 28 October 1994 ceased to apply.
“(1) Everyone shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and freely to obtain information from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting on the radio and in films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
Secrecy of mail, post and telecommunications
Restriction on basic rights
“(4) If a person’s rights are violated by a public authority he may have recourse to the courts. If no other jurisdiction has been established, the civil courts shall have jurisdiction. Article 10 § 2, second sentence, remains unaffected by this paragraph.”
“The Federation shall have exclusive power to legislate (ausschließliche Gesetzgebungskompetenz) on:
2. The Act of 13 August 1968 on Restrictions on the Secrecy of Mail, Post and Telecommunications
16. Being the statute envisaged by Article 10 § 2, second sentence, of the Basic Law (cited above, paragraph 14), which provides for exceptions to the general rule of inviolability of telecommunications, the Act of 13 August 1968 on Restrictions on the Secrecy of Mail, Post and Telecommunications (Gesetz zur Beschränkung des Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnisses), also called “the G 10 Act”, lays down the conditions under which the authorities may introduce the restrictions referred to in that provision of the Basic Law.
17. In a judgment delivered on 6 September 1978 (Klass and Others v. Germany, Series A no. 28) the Court held that the provisions of the G 10 Act of 13 August 1968, in its original version and as regards the monitoring of individuals, did not contravene the Convention. It found that the German legislature was justified in considering that the interference resulting from the legislation in question with the rights guaranteed by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention was necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of paragraph 2 of that Article. The Court also considered that the remedies provided for in the G 10 Act complied with the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention.
18. The Federal Act of 28 October 1994 on the Fight against Crime amended the G 10 Act. Among other things, it extended the range of subjects in respect of which “strategic monitoring” (as opposed to monitoring of individuals) could be carried out. In the original version of the G 10 Act such monitoring was permitted only in order to detect and avert the danger of an armed attack on the Federal Republic of Germany and at that time was therefore merely focused on the States belonging to the Warsaw Pact. Furthermore, owing to technical progress it had become possible to identify the telephone connections (Anschlüsse) involved in an intercepted telecommunication.
19. Pursuant to the provisions of the G 10 Act, which either remained unchanged by the Fight against Crime Act or were not contested in the present case, the Offices for the Protection of the Constitution of both the Federation and the Länder (Verfassungsschutzbehörden des Bundes und der Länder), the Military Counter-Intelligence Service (Militärischer Abschirmdienst) and the Federal Intelligence Service were entitled to monitor and record telecommunications within their own sphere of activities (section 1(1) of the G 10 Act). Monitoring of individuals was limited to serious threats to national security (for example, high treason or threatening the democratic order) and was permissible only if less intrusive means of investigation had no prospect of success or were considerably more difficult (section 2 of the G 10 Act). As to strategic monitoring, only the head of the Federal Intelligence Service or his deputy were entitled to lodge an application for a surveillance order. The application had to be lodged in writing, had to describe and give reasons for the nature, scope and duration of the measure and had to explain that other means of carrying out the investigations either had no prospect of success or were considerably more difficult (section 4 of the G 10 Act).
23. The Federal Constitutional Court found that in its present version, section 3(4) was incompatible with Article 10 and Article 5 § 1, second sentence, of the Basic Law. It found that the provision did not contain sufficient safeguards to guarantee that personal data which were not destroyed or deleted as being unnecessary for the purposes of the Federal Intelligence Service would be used only for the purposes which had justified their collection. Furthermore, the provision also failed to comply with the identification requirements flowing from Article 10. In addition, there were insufficient safeguards to guarantee that the Federal Intelligence Service would only use such data as were relevant for the dangers listed in section 3(1). Such safeguards should also ensure that the Federal Intelligence Service would take into account the important concerns of non-disclosure of sources and confidentiality of editorial work as protected by the freedom of the press under Article 5 § 1 of the Basic Law. The court ruled that, pending the entry into force of legislation in compliance with the Constitution, section 3(4) was to be applied only if the data were specially marked and were not used for purposes other than those listed in section 3(1).
25. The G 10 Commission consisted of a president who was qualified to hold judicial office and three additional members who were appointed by the Parliamentary Supervisory Board for the duration of one legislative term and who were independent in the exercise of their functions (see section 9(4) of the G 10 Act). The Federal Minister authorising surveillance measures had to inform the G 10 Commission monthly about planned monitoring measures and had to obtain its consent (section 9(2) of the G 10 Act; see in detail below, paragraphs 55-58). Moreover, the Federal Minister had to inform the Commission whether or not persons concerned by such measures had been notified of them. If the Commission decided that notification was necessary, the Federal Minister had to arrange for it to be given without undue delay (section 9(3) of the G 10 Act).
27. Section 3(1), first sentence, provided that restrictions on the secrecy of telecommunications could be ordered by the competent Federal Minister with the approval of the Parliamentary Supervisory Board, on an application by the Federal Intelligence Service, for international wireless telecommunications. Under the second sentence of that provision, such restrictions were permitted only in order to collect information about which knowledge was necessary for the timely identification and avoidance of certain dangers, namely
1. an armed attack on the Federal Republic of Germany;
2. the commission of international terrorist attacks in the Federal Republic of Germany;
3. international arms trafficking within the meaning of the Control of Weapons of War Act and prohibited external trade in goods, data-processing programmes and technologies in cases of considerable importance;
4. the illegal importation of drugs in substantial quantities into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany;
5. the counterfeiting of money (Geldfälschung) committed abroad;
6. the laundering of money in the context of the acts listed under points 3 to 5. Pursuant to section 3(1), third sentence, restrictions on the secrecy of telecommunications could also be ordered for telecommunications via fixed telephone lines and for mail in order to identify and avert the dangers listed in section 3(1), second sentence, point 1.
d. Section 3(3) of the amended G 10 Act: Restrictions on the permitted use of personal data
33. Section 3(3), first sentence, provided that personal data (personenbezogene Daten) obtained through the interception of telecommunications could only serve the prevention, investigation and prosecution of offences listed in section 2 of the Act and in certain other provisions, notably of the Criminal Code. These offences included, in particular, high treason against the peace or security of the State, crimes threatening the democratic order, the external security of the State or the security of the allied forces based in the Federal Republic of Germany, the formation of terrorist associations, murder, manslaughter, robbery, the forgery of payment cards or cheques, fraud relating to economic subsidies, infiltration of foreigners and the production, importation and trafficking of illegal drugs. Personal data thus obtained could be used only if the person concerned was either subject to individual monitoring under section 2 of the Act or if there were factual indications (tatsächliche Anhaltspunkte) for suspecting a person of planning, committing or having committed one of the offences mentioned above. This catalogue of offences for the investigation of which knowledge obtained by strategic monitoring could be used was considerably enlarged by the amendment of the G 10 Act at issue.
34. Pursuant to section 3(3), second sentence, the obligation on the Federal Intelligence Service to inform the Federal Government of its findings obtained by strategic monitoring, including personal data, under section 12 of the Act on the Federal Intelligence Service remained unaffected.
35. The Federal Constitutional Court found that section 3(3), second sentence, in its present version, failed to comply with Article 10 and Article 5 § 1, second sentence, of the Basic Law. The provision did not contain sufficient safeguards to guarantee that the duty of the Federal Intelligence Service to report to the Federal Government, which included the transmission of personal data, would be performed solely for the purposes which had justified the collection of the data (Zweckbindung). Furthermore, the provision failed to comply with the identification requirements (Kennzeichnungspflicht) flowing from Article 10. Ensuring that personal data were not used for illegal purposes was possible only if it remained discernible that the data concerned had been obtained by means of an interference with the secrecy of telecommunications. Likewise, there were no safeguards ensuring that the Federal Government did not keep or use the personal data transmitted to them for purposes other than those listed in section 3(1). The court ruled that, pending the entry into force of legislation in compliance with the Constitution, section 3(3), second sentence, was to be applied only if the personal data contained in the report to the Federal Government were marked and remained bound up with the purposes which had justified their collection.
36. Section 3(5), first sentence, provided that the data obtained in the circumstances described in subsection 1 of section 3 had to be transmitted to the Offices for the Protection of the Constitution of the Federation and of the Länder, to the Military Counter-Intelligence Service, to the Customs Investigation Office (Zollkriminalamt), to the public prosecutor’s offices and to certain police services for the purposes laid down in subsection 3 of section 3 in so far as this was necessary for the recipient authorities to carry out their duties.
39. The Federal Constitutional Court further found that section 3(5) was not fully compatible with Article 10 and Article 5 § 1, second sentence, of the Basic Law. It held that Article 10 did not prohibit the transmission to the authorities listed in section 3(5), first sentence, of information which was relevant for the prevention and investigation of criminal offences. This finding was not called into question by the fact that the initial collection of data by means of the random interception of telecommunications in order to prevent or investigate offences, without any prior suspicion of a specific offence being planned or having been committed, would breach Article 10.
42. The catalogue of offences in respect of which the transmission of data was permitted also included less serious offences such as fraud relating to economic subsidies. Moreover, the impugned provision authorised the transmission of data in cases in which there were merely factual indications for the suspicion that one of the offences listed in that provision had been committed or was even only being planned. The transmission of data for the investigation of an offence which had already been committed should be authorised only if the factual basis for the transmission was the same as that required by section 100a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 100a provided, however, that interferences with the secrecy of telecommunications in order to investigate crimes required the presence of specific facts – as opposed to mere factual indications – warranting the suspicion that the person concerned had committed an offence listed in that provision. As regards the transmission of data for the prevention of crime, the combination of the elements that mere factual indications were sufficient, that the mere planning of an offence could suffice and that transmission could also be justified in the case of less serious offences led to a disproportionate interference with the fundamental rights affected.
47. Section 3(7) provided that the recipient authorities likewise were to verify whether they needed the data transmitted to them in order to achieve the aims laid down in section 3(3) (first sentence). If this was not the case, they also had to destroy the data immediately (second sentence). The destruction could be dispensed with if separation of the data from other information which was necessary for the fulfilment of the tasks set was impossible or could only be carried out through unjustifiable effort; the use of such data was prohibited (third sentence).
49. The Federal Constitutional Court found that the provisions on the destruction of data laid down in section 3(6) and (7), second and third sentences, and section 7(4) complied with Article 19 § 4 of the Basic Law. The provisions, however, had to be interpreted so as not to frustrate judicial review of monitoring measures. This meant that data could only be destroyed six months after the person concerned had been notified that monitoring measures had been taken.
(g) Section 3(8) of the amended G 10 Act: Notification of the persons concerned by the monitoring
53. However, section 3(8), second sentence, violated Article 10 and Article 19 § 4 of the Basic Law. There were no safeguards precluding the data from being used before their destruction within the three-month period. The mere destruction of the data within that period alone did not, however, justify dispensing with the duty of notification irrespective of the prior use of the data.
57. The Federal Minister could, however, order the execution of the measure before having informed the G 10 Commission if there was a risk that a delay might frustrate the purpose of the measure (second sentence of section 9(2)). The Commission gave a decision of its own motion or further to complaints contesting the legality and necessity of monitoring measures (third sentence). Monitoring orders which the Commission deemed illegal or unnecessary had to be immediately revoked by the Minister (fourth sentence).
60. Pursuant to section 5(5) of the G 10 Act, which remained unchanged in substance, the person concerned had to be notified of measures restricting the secrecy of telecommunications as soon as these measures were discontinued, provided that such notification did not jeopardise the purpose of the restriction (first and second sentence). After notification the person concerned could have recourse to the courts; section 9(6) did not apply (third sentence).
62. A new version of the G 10 Act, which takes into account the principles laid down by the Federal Constitutional Court in its judgment dated 14 July 1999, entered into force on 26 June 2001.
66. The Government argued, firstly, that the application was incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. Both applicants resided in Uruguay and claimed that their Convention rights had been infringed as regards telecommunications from their telephone connections in that country. The monitoring of telecommunications made from abroad, however, had to be qualified as an extraterritorial act. In accordance with the Court’s decision in the case of Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others ([GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII), the applicants therefore did not come within Germany’s jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention – a concept which was primarily territorial – on account of that act.
69. The applicants contested those submissions. As to the applications’ compatibility ratione personae with the Convention, the first applicant argued that she came within German jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as she was a German national. Both applicants further argued that it could not be decisive that the impugned acts had taken effect abroad. Otherwise a respondent State could circumvent its obligations under the Convention.
71. The applicants further argued that they had not lost their status as victims of violations of their Convention rights in so far as they had not been granted the redress sought in their constitutional complaints. They stressed that the powers of the Federal Intelligence Service had remained unchanged in the new version of the G 10 Act of 2001 in so far as the Federal Constitutional Court had not objected to them. It was in the nature of secret monitoring that they could not prove that they had actually been subjected to it. However, it was very likely that because of their activities, they had used catchwords within the meaning of section 3(2) of the G 10 Act, which had caused their communications to be recorded and analysed.
72. The Court does not consider it necessary in the present case to rule on the objections made by the Government since, even assuming that the applications are compatible ratione personae with the Convention, that domestic remedies have been exhausted and that both applicants can claim to be victims of Convention violations, it considers that the applications are in any event inadmissible for the reasons set out below.
74. In particular, the applicants complained about five measures. Firstly, they complained about the process of strategic monitoring (section 3(1), taken in conjunction with section 1(1), point 2, of the G 10 Act). Secondly, they contested the transmission and use of personal data pursuant to section 3(3), second sentence, of the G 10 Act. Thirdly, they complained about the transmission of personal data to the Offices for the Protection of the Constitution and other authorities and its use by them pursuant to section 3(5) of the G 10 Act. Fourthly, they contested the destruction of personal data under section 3(6) and (7), taken in conjunction with section 7(4), of the G 10 Act. Fifthly, they contested the provision authorising the refusal to give notice of restrictions on the secrecy of telecommunications (section 3(8) of the G 10 Act).
75. The applicants invoked Article 8 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads:
77. The Court reiterates that telephone conversations are covered by the notions of "private life" and "correspondence" within the meaning of Article 8 (see, inter alia, Klass and Others, cited above, p. 21, § 41; Malone v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984 Series A no. 82, pp. 30-31, § 64; and Lambert v. France, judgment of 24 August 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V, pp. 2238-39, § 21).
78. The Court further notes that the applicants, even though they were members of a group of persons who were likely to be affected by measures of interception, were unable to demonstrate that the impugned measures had actually been applied to them. It reiterates, however, its findings in comparable cases to the effect that the mere existence of legislation which allows a system for the secret monitoring of communications entails a threat of surveillance for all those to whom the legislation may be applied. This threat necessarily strikes at freedom of communication between users of the telecommunications services and thereby amounts in itself to an interference with the exercise of the applicants’ rights under Article 8, irrespective of any measures actually taken against them (see Klass and Others, cited above, p. 21, § 41, and Malone, cited above, pp. 30-31, § 64).
79. Consequently, the impugned provisions of the amended G 10 Act, in so far as they authorise the interception of telecommunications, interfere with the applicants’ right to respect for private life and correspondence. Furthermore, the Court, like the Federal Constitutional Court, takes the view that the transmission of data to and their use by other authorities, which enlarges the group of persons with knowledge of the personal data intercepted and can lead to investigations being instituted against the persons concerned, constitutes a further separate interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis, Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 22, § 48; Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 70, ECHR 2000-II; and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 46, ECHR 2000-V). Moreover, the impugned provisions interfere with these rights in so far as they provide for the destruction of the data obtained and for the refusal to notify the persons concerned of surveillance measures taken in that this may serve to conceal monitoring measures interfering with the applicants’ rights under Article 8 which have been carried out by the authorities.
82. The Government further submitted that the circumstances in which telecommunications could be monitored and the data thus obtained be used were set out in a precise manner in the amended provisions of the G 10 Act and in the Constitutional Court’s judgment. There were, in particular, sufficient procedural safeguards against abuse of powers of surveillance.
84. The Court reiterates that the expression “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 requires, firstly, that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must, moreover, be able to foresee its consequences for him, and compatible with the rule of law (see, among other authorities, Kruslin v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, § 27; Huvig v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-B, p. 52, § 26; Lambert, cited above, p. 2239, § 23; and Perry v. the United Kingdom, no. 63737/00, § 45, ECHR 2003-IX).
i. Whether there was a statutory basis in German law
87. The Court reiterates that the term “law” within the meaning of the Convention refers back to national law, including rules of public international law applicable in the State concerned (see, mutatis mutandis, Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, p. 26, § 68; Autronic AG v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 178, p. 25, § 56; Stocké v. Germany, judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 199, p. 19, § 54; and Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 90, ECHR 2005-IV). As regards allegations that a respondent State has violated international law by breaching the territorial sovereignty of a foreign State, the Court requires proof in the form of concordant inferences that the authorities of the respondent State have acted extraterritorially in a manner that is inconsistent with the sovereignty of the foreign State and therefore contrary to international law (see, in particular, Öcalan, cited above, § 90).
88. The Court observes that the impugned provisions of the amended G 10 Act authorise the monitoring of international wireless telecommunications, that is, telecommunications which are not effected via fixed telephone lines but, for example, via satellite or radio relay links, and the use of data thus obtained. Signals emitted from foreign countries are monitored by interception sites situated on German soil and the data collected are used in Germany. In the light of this, the Court finds that the applicants failed to provide proof in the form of concordant inferences that the German authorities, by enacting and applying strategic monitoring measures, have acted in a manner which interfered with the territorial sovereignty of foreign States as protected in public international law.
89. The Court further observes that the applicants disputed, secondly, that section 3(5) of the amended G 10 Act provided a valid legal basis for the transmission of information. They argued that the federal legislature had not been authorised vis-à-vis the Länder legislatures, by the relevant provisions on legislative powers laid down in the Basic Law, in particular Article 73, to adopt such a provision. They were, therefore, claiming in substance that the impugned provision of the amended G 10 Act failed to comply with domestic law of a higher rank, namely the provisions on legislative powers laid down in the German Constitution.
90. The Court reiterates in this connection that, whilst it is true that no interference can be considered to be “in accordance with law” unless the decision – or statutory provision – occasioning it complied with the relevant domestic law – of a higher rank – the logic of the system of safeguards established by the Convention sets limits on the scope of the power of review exercisable by the Court in this respect. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply the domestic law: the national authorities are, in the nature of things, particularly qualified to settle the issues arising in this connection (see, mutatis mutandis, Kruslin, cited above, p. 21, § 29, and Barthold v. Germany, judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, pp. 22-23, § 48). In a sphere covered by written law, the “law” is therefore the enactment in force as the competent courts have interpreted it in the light, if necessary, of any new practical developments, and the Court cannot question the national courts’ interpretation except in the event of flagrant non-observance of, or arbitrariness in the application of, the domestic legislation in question (see, inter alia, Kruslin, cited above, p. 21, § 29; Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; and, mutatis mutandis, Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002; and Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005-...).
93. As to the third requirement, the law’s foreseeability, the Court reiterates that foreseeability in the special context of secret measures of surveillance, such as the interception of communications, cannot mean that an individual should be able to foresee when the authorities are likely to intercept his communications so that he can adapt his conduct accordingly (see, inter alia, Leander, cited above, p. 23, § 51). However, especially where a power vested in the executive is exercised in secret, the risks of arbitrariness are evident (see, inter alia, Malone, cited above, p. 32, § 67; Huvig, cited above, pp. 54-55, § 29; and Rotaru, cited above, § 55). It is therefore essential to have clear, detailed rules on interception of telephone conversations, especially as the technology available for use is continually becoming more sophisticated (see Kopp v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1998, Reports 1998-II, pp. 542-43, § 72, and Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, pp. 1924-25, § 46). The domestic law must be sufficiently clear in its terms to give citizens an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which public authorities are empowered to resort to any such measures (see Malone, ibid.; Kopp, cited above, p. 541, § 64; Huvig, cited above, pp. 54-55, § 29; and Valenzuela Contreras, ibid.).
95. In its case-law on secret measures of surveillance, the Court has developed the following minimum safeguards that should be set out in statute law in order to avoid abuses of power: the nature of the offences which may give rise to an interception order; a definition of the categories of people liable to have their telephones tapped; a limit on the duration of telephone tapping; the procedure to be followed for examining, using and storing the data obtained; the precautions to be taken when communicating the data to other parties; and the circumstances in which recordings may or must be erased or the tapes destroyed (see, inter alia, Huvig, cited above, p. 56, § 34; Amann, cited above, § 76; Valenzuela Contreras, cited above, pp. 1924-25, § 46; and Prado Bugallo v. Spain, no. 58496/00, § 30, 18 February 2003).
97. The Court further observes that the conditions for strategic monitoring, as laid down in section 3(1) and (2) of the amended G 10 Act, in particular, indicated which categories of persons were liable to have their telephone tapped: the persons concerned had to have taken part in an international telephone conversation via satellite connections or radio relay links (or also via fixed telephone lines in the case of monitoring to avert an armed attack on Germany, in accordance with section 3(1), point 1). In addition, the persons concerned either had to have used catchwords capable of triggering an investigation into the dangers listed in section 3(1), points 1-6, or had be foreign nationals or companies whose telephone connections could be monitored deliberately in order to avoid such dangers (section 3(2)).
100. As to the circumstances in which recordings may or must be erased or tapes destroyed, the Court observes that section 3 (6) and (7) and section 7(4) of the amended G 10 Act set out in detail the procedure for the destruction of data obtained by means of strategic monitoring. The authorities storing the data had to verify every six months whether those data were still necessary to achieve the purposes for which they had been obtained by or transmitted to them. If that was not the case, they had to be destroyed and deleted from the files or, at the very least, access to them had to be blocked; the destruction had to be recorded in minutes and, in the cases envisaged in section 3(6) and section 7(4), had to be supervised by a staff member qualified to hold judicial office.
102. Therefore, the interferences with the applicants’ right to respect for private life and correspondence as a result of the impugned provisions of the amended G 10 Act were “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.
106. The Court reiterates that when balancing the interest of the respondent State in protecting its national security through secret surveillance measures against the seriousness of the interference with an applicant’s right to respect for his or her private life, it has consistently recognised that the national authorities enjoy a fairly wide margin of appreciation in choosing the means for achieving the legitimate aim of protecting national security (see, inter alia, Klass and Others, cited above, p. 23, § 49; Leander, cited above, p. 25, § 59; and Malone, cited above, pp. 36-37, § 81). Nevertheless, in view of the risk that a system of secret surveillance for the protection of national security may undermine or even destroy democracy under the cloak of defending it, the Court must be satisfied that there exist adequate and effective guarantees against abuse (see Klass and Others, cited above, pp. 23-24, §§ 49-50; Leander, cited above, p. 25, § 60; Camenzind v. Switzerland, judgment of 16 December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, pp. 2893-94, § 45; and Lambert, cited above, p. 2240, § 31). This assessment depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature, scope and duration of the possible measures, the grounds required for ordering them, the authorities competent to authorise, carry out and supervise them, and the kind of remedy provided by the national law (see Klass and Others, cited above, pp. 23-24, § 50).
i. Strategic monitoring pursuant to section 3(1), taken in conjunction with section 1(1), point 2, of the amended G 10 Act (as modified by the Fight against Crime Act of 28 October 1994)
109. According to the Government, monitoring measures based on the G 10 Act had notably been necessary to combat international terrorism (point 2), by which democratic societies found themselves increasingly threatened, for instance by uncovering the command structure of Al-Qaida following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. As regards international arms trafficking (point 3), it had, for example, been possible to prevent the export of dual-use goods into countries subject to an embargo and to improve export control with the help of strategic monitoring. It was impossible to counter these threats without resorting to strategic monitoring of telecommunications.
112. In the applicant’s view, these wide monitoring powers did not correspond to a pressing need on the part of society for such surveillance. There was no longer a threat of an armed attack on the Federal Republic of Germany by a foreign State possessing nuclear weapons, as there had been during the “Cold War”. Nor was there any other comparable current danger to be averted. In particular, drug trafficking, counterfeiting of money and money laundering or presumed dangers arising from organised crime did not constitute a danger to public safety sufficient to justify such an intensive interference with the telecommunications of individuals. The fact that interception was limited to content of “relevance for the intelligence service” (“nachrichtendienstliche Relevanz”), as a result of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, was not sufficient to constrain effectively the monitoring powers of the Federal Intelligence Service.
114. The Court is aware that the 1994 amendments to the G 10 Act considerably extended the range of subjects in respect of which so-called strategic monitoring could be carried out under section 3(1), the central provision at issue here. Whereas initially such monitoring was permitted only in order to detect and avert the danger of an armed attack on Germany, section 3(1) now also allowed strategic monitoring in order to avert further serious offences listed in points 2-6 of that section. Moreover, technical progress now made it possible to identify the telephone connections involved in intercepted communications.
115. While the range of subjects in the amended G 10 Act is very broadly defined, the Court observes that – just as under the G 10 Act in its initial version, which was at issue in its Klass and Others judgment – a series of restrictive conditions had to be satisfied before a measure entailing strategic monitoring could be imposed. It was merely in respect of certain serious criminal acts – which reflect threats with which society is confronted nowadays and which were listed in detail in the impugned section 3(1) – that permission for strategic monitoring could be sought. As regards the monitoring of telecommunications in order to avoid the counterfeiting of money abroad, the Federal Constitutional Court raised the threshold for interception by finding that such an offence could be serious enough to justify monitoring only if it was capable of threatening monetary stability in Germany. Surveillance could be ordered only on a reasoned application by the President of the Federal Intelligence Service or his deputy and if the establishment of the facts by another method had no prospect of success or was considerably more difficult. The decision to monitor had to be taken by the Federal Minister empowered for the purpose by the Chancellor or, where appropriate, by the highest authority of the Länder with the authorisation of the Parliamentary Supervisory Board. The Minister further had to obtain prior authorisation from the G 10 Commission or, in urgent cases, ex post facto approval. Consequently, under the amended G 10 Act there was an administrative procedure designed to ensure that measures were not ordered haphazardly, irregularly or without due and proper consideration.
116. Moreover, the Court notes, with regard to the implementation of surveillance measures and the processing of the data obtained, that safeguards against abuse were spelled out in detail. Monitoring measures remained in force for a fairly short maximum period of three months and could be renewed only on a fresh application and if the statutory conditions for the order were still met. Monitoring had to be discontinued immediately once the conditions set out in the monitoring order were no longer fulfilled or the measures themselves were no longer necessary. As regards the examination of personal data obtained by the Federal Intelligence Service, the Federal Constitutional Court strengthened the existing safeguards by ordering that such data had to be marked as stemming from strategic monitoring and were not to be used for ends other than those listed in section 3(1). The transmission of data to the Federal Government and to other authorities under section 3(3) and (5) was also subject to conditions (which will be examined in more detail below). Moreover, the G 10 Act contained strict provisions concerning the storage and destruction of data. The responsibility for reviewing stored files on a six-month basis was entrusted to an official qualified to hold judicial office. Data had to be destroyed as soon as they were no longer needed to achieve the purpose pursued (see in more detail below, paragraphs 130-132).
117. As regards supervision and review of monitoring measures, the Court notes that the G 10 Act provided for independent supervision by two bodies which had a comparatively significant role to play. Firstly, there was a Parliamentary Supervisory Board, which consisted of nine members of parliament, including members of the opposition. The Federal Minister authorising monitoring measures had to report to this board at least every six months. Secondly, the Act established the G 10 Commission, which had to authorise surveillance measures and had substantial power in relation to all stages of interception. The Court observes that in its judgment in the Klass and Others case (cited above, pp. 24-28, §§ 53-60) it found this system of supervision, which remained essentially the same under the amended G 10 Act at issue here, to be such as to keep the interference resulting from the contested legislation to what was “necessary in a democratic society”. It sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
ii. Transmission and use of personal data pursuant to section 3(3), second sentence, of the G 10 Act, taken in conjunction with section 12 of the Federal Intelligence Service Act
119. The Government submitted that in a democratic society it was necessary for the Federal Intelligence Service to report to the Federal Government on the results of its monitoring measures in accordance with section 3(3), second sentence, of the amended G 10 Act, taken in conjunction with section 12 of the Federal Intelligence Service Act. This included the transmission of personal data which had to be marked as deriving from such measures. Otherwise, the Government would not be in a position to take effective measures to avert the dangers listed in section 3(1).
122. The Court finds that the impugned provision, as amended and applicable following the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court, laid down strict conditions with regard to the transmission to the Federal Government of data obtained by means of strategic monitoring. It is further convinced by the Government’s argument that, in order effectively to avert the dangers listed in section 3(1), the transmission of personal – as opposed to anonymous – data might prove necessary. The additional safeguards introduced by the Federal Constitutional Court are appropriate for the purpose of limiting the use of the information obtained to what is necessary to serve the purpose of strategic monitoring.
iii. Transmission of personal data to the Offices for the Protection of the Constitution and other authorities and their use by these authorities in accordance with section 3(5) of the G 10 Act
125. The Court finds that the transmission of personal data obtained by general surveillance measures without any specific prior suspicion in order to allow the institution of criminal proceedings against those being monitored constitutes a fairly serious interference with the right of these persons to secrecy of telecommunications. It observes in this connection that the catalogue of offences for the investigation of which knowledge obtained by means of strategic monitoring could be used was considerably enlarged by the amendment of the G 10 Act at issue.
127. Moreover, the Court observes that the Federal Constitutional Court found that the impugned section, in its version in force at the relevant time, interfered disproportionately with the secrecy of telecommunications as protected by the Basic Law. That court therefore ordered that, pending the entry into force of legislation in compliance with the Constitution, section 3(5) could only be applied and data be transmitted if specific facts – as opposed to mere factual indications – aroused the suspicion that someone had committed one of the offences listed in section 3(3). Furthermore, the transmission had to be recorded in minutes. Accordingly, that court again considerably strengthened the safeguards against abuse.
iv. Destruction of personal data pursuant to section 3(6) and (7), taken in conjunction with section 7(4), of the G 10 Act
v. Failure to give notice of restrictions on the secrecy of telecommunications pursuant to section 3(8) of the G 10 Act
133. In the Government’s view, the provisions on notification were compatible with Article 8. As the purposes of strategic monitoring in accordance with section 3(1) would often be undermined if the persons concerned were subsequently informed about the measure, it was justified in such cases not to give any notification.
135. The Court reiterates that the question of subsequent notification of surveillance measures is inextricably linked to the effectiveness of remedies before the courts and hence to the existence of effective safeguards against the abuse of monitoring powers, since there is in principle little scope for recourse to the courts by the individual concerned unless the latter is advised of the measures taken without his or her knowledge and thus able to challenge their legality retrospectively (see Klass and Others, cited above, pp. 26-27, § 57). However, the fact that persons concerned by secret surveillance measures are not subsequently notified once surveillance has ceased cannot by itself warrant the conclusion that the interference was not “necessary in a democratic society”, as it is the very absence of knowledge of surveillance which ensures the efficacy of the interference. Indeed, such notification might reveal the working methods and fields of operation of the Intelligence Service (see Klass and Others, cited above, p. 27, § 58, and, mutatis mutandis, Leander, cited above, p. 27, § 66). As soon as notification can be carried out without jeopardising the purpose of the restriction after the termination of the surveillance measure, information should, however, be provided to the persons concerned (see, mutatis mutandis, Leander, cited above, p. 27, § 66, and Klass and Others, cited above, p. 27, § 58).
138. Accordingly, the applicants’ complaints under Article 8 must be dismissed as being manifestly ill-founded, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
139. In the first applicant’s submission, certain provisions of the Fight against Crime Act, as interpreted and modified by the Federal Constitutional Court, amounted to a violation of freedom of the press. She complained about the same provisions of the Act as under Article 8 of the Convention (see above, paragraph 74). She relied on Article 10 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads:
143. The Court reiterates that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and that the safeguards to be afforded to the press are of particular importance. The protection of journalistic sources is one of the cornerstones of freedom of the press. Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public about matters of public interest. As a result the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be undermined, and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information be adversely affected (see, inter alia, Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 March 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 500, § 39, and Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-IV).
149. In examining whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court reiterates that, having regard to the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for the freedom of the press in a democratic society, an interference cannot be compatible with Article 10 of the Convention unless it is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest. In reviewing the decisions taken – or provisions enacted – by national authorities exercising their power of appreciation, the Court must look at the “interference” complained of in the light of the case as a whole and determine whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it were “relevant and sufficient” (see, inter alia, Goodwin, cited above, pp. 500-01, §§ 39-40, and Roemen and Schmit, cited above, § 46).
154. In the applicants’ view, certain provisions of the Fight against Crime Act amending the G 10 Act, as interpreted and modified by the Federal Constitutional Court, violated their right to an effective remedy. They complained, in particular, about the destruction of personal data (section 3(6) and (7), taken in conjunction with section 7(4), of the G 10 Act), the failure to receive notice of restrictions on the secrecy of telecommunications (section 3(8) of the G 10 Act), and the exclusion of judicial review of monitoring measures (section 9(6), taken in conjunction with section 3(1)). They submitted that these measures prevented them from lodging an effective complaint with the national courts about violations of their rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. They relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
155. According to the Court’s case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52; Voyager Limited v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35045/97, 4 September 2001; Ivison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39030/97, 16 April 2002; and Petersen v. Germany (dec.), nos. 38282/97 and 68891/01, 12 January 2006).
WEBER AND SARAVIA v. GERMANY DECISION