CASE OF BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Hearing: Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 58170/13), Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Alice Ross v. the United Kingdom (no. 62322/14) and 10 Human Rights Organisations and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 24960/15) (Chamber hearing, 2017-11-07 00:00:00)
Application no.: 62322/14
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2021-05-25 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0525JUD005817013
Respondent state: GBR
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;10;10-1;10-2;34
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Armen Harutyunyan;Carlo Ranzoni;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Marko Bošnjak;Mārtiņš Mits;Paul Lemmens;Pauliine Koskelo;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Ksenija Turković;Tim Eicke
Represented by: CAREY D. ; CURLING R. ; NORTON E.
Issue: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”) ; Interception of Communications Code of Practice (the “IC Code”)

Strasbourg case-law cited: Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, §§ 130-139, ECHR 2011;Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 69, ECHR 2000 II;Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, § 75, 28 June 2007;Centrum för rättvisa v. Sweden, no. 35252/08, 19 June 2018;Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, no. 17488/90, § 39, 27 March 1996;Heglas v. the Czech Republic, no. 5935/02, § 74, 1 March 2007;Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176 B;Jaloud v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 47708/08, §§ 139 and 151 ECHR 2014;Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, § 130, 18 May 2010;Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, §§ 55 and 56, Series A no. 28;Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176 A;Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116;Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, 1 July 2008;Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82;Nordisk Film & TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 40485/02, ECHR 2005 XIII;Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, §§ 46 and 57, ECHR 2003 IV;Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, ECHR 2015;Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, ECHR 2000 V;S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECHR 2008;S.M. v. Croatia [GC], no. 60561/14, § 216, 25 June 2020;Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, 14 September 2010;Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, no. 62332/00, § 120, ECHR 2006 VII;Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, no. 37138/14, 12 January 2016;Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain, 30 July 1998, § 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 V;Voskuil v. the Netherlands, no. 64752/01, § 65, 22 November 2007;Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006‑XI;Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, §§ 62-66, ECHR 2007 XI
External sources: Report of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the “Venice Commission”) on the Democratic Oversight of Signals Intelligence Agencies (2015);Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (“FISA”)

Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Separate opinion: TRUE