CASE OF BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Hearing: Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-07-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 58170/13
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2018-09-13 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0913JUD005817013
Respondent state: GBR
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;10;10-1;10-2;35;35-3-a
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turković;Tim Eicke
Represented by: CAREY D. ; CURLING R. ; NORTON E.
Issue: Chapter 12 and paragraphs 4.1-4.8, 6.22-6.24, 6.7, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.15, 7.16, 7.17, 7.18 and 12.5 of the Interception of Communications Code of Practice (“IC Code Practice”) ; Chapter II and sections 5(3), 5(6), 8(1), 8(4), 9, 15, 15(2), 15(3), 15(4), 16, 16(2)(a), 16(2)(b), 16(3), 20, 22 and 81 of RIPA ; Paragraphs 2.24-2.27, 3.76 and 3.78-3.84 of the ACD Code ; Article 77-1-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code ; Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”) ; Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1998 ; Terrorism Act 2000 ; Section 19(2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 ; Investigatory Powers Act 2016 ; British-US Communication Intelligence Agreement of 5 March 1946 ; Security Services Act 1989 (“SSA”) ; Intelligence Services Act 1994 (“ISA”) ; Section 1(1) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 (“OSA”)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 181, ECHR 2009;A. v. the Netherlands, no. 4900/06, § 143, 20 July 2010;Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV;Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, §§ 130-139, ECHR 2011;Anthony France and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 25357/16, 25514/16, 25552/16 and 25597/16, 26 September 2016;Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007;Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 85-88, 7 February 2012;Ben Faiza v. France, no. 31446/12, 8 February 2018;Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 165 ECHR 2005 VI;Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 43, ECHR 2008;Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 79, Reports 1996 V;Charron and Merle Montet v. France (dec), no. 22612/15, § 30, 16 January 2018;Courtney v. Ireland (dec), no. 69558/10, 18 December 2012;Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010;Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, Reports 1996 II;Gough v. the United Kingdom, no. 49327/11, § 140, 28 October 2014;Heglas v. the Czech Republic, no. 5935/02, § 74, 1 March 2007;Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176 B;Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25;Jaloud v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 47708/08, §§ 139 and 151 ECHR 2014;Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28;Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 40, Series A no. 260 A;Lawless v. Ireland (no. 3), 1 July 1961, §§ 28–30, Series A no. 3;Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116;Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, 1 July 2008;Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, § 50, ECHR 2000 VI;Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82;McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010;MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, §§ 140-155, 18 January 2011;Mustafa Sezgin Tanrıkulu v. Turkey, no. 27473/06, 18 July 2017;Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 179, ECHR 2005 IV;Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom, no. 8139/09, § 183, ECHR 2012;Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, § 57, 12 September 2011;R.E. v. the United Kingdom, no. 62498/11, 27 October 2015;Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, 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;Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, 14 September 2010;Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 70, 17 September 2009;Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006 II;Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, no. 37138/14, 12 January 2016;Trabelsi v. Belgium, no. 140/10, § 117, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Uzun v. Germany, no. 35623/05, ECHR 2010 (extracts);Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain, 30 July 1998, Reports 1998 V;Voskuil v. the Netherlands, no. 64752/01, § 65, 22 November 2007;Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, 25 March 2014;Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006‑XI
External sources: 2015 Report of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (“Venice Commission”) on the Democratic Oversight of Signals Intelligence Agencies;2016 annual report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;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)
Separate opinion: TRUE