Last Updated on May 23, 2019 by LawEuro
Information Note on the Court’s case-law 226
February 2019
Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom (referral) – 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15
Judgment 13.9.2018 [Section I]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Convention compliance of secret surveillance regime including the bulk interception of external communications: case referred to the Grand Chamber
The applicants, a number of companies, charities, organisations and individuals, complained about the scope and magnitude of the electronic surveillance programmes operated by the Government of the United Kingdom. The applicants all believed that due to the nature of their activities, their electronic communications were likely to have either been intercepted by the United Kingdom intelligence services; obtained by the United Kingdom intelligence services after being intercepted by foreign governments; and/or obtained by the United Kingdom authorities from Communications Service Providers (CSPs).
The applicants complained about the Article 8 compatibility of three discrete regimes: the regime for the bulk interception of communications under section 8(4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA); the intelligence sharing regime; and the regime for the acquisition of communications data under Chapter II of RIPA.
In a judgment of 13 September 2018 (see Information Note 221), a Chamber of the Court found, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 8 as regards the section 8(4) regime, finding that the regime did not meet the “quality of law” requirement and was incapable of keeping the “interference” to what was “necessary in a democratic society”. As regards the intelligence sharing regime, the Chamber held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 8 as there had been no evidence of any significant shortcomings in the application and operation of that regime. The Chamber further found, by six votes to one, a violation of Article 8 as regards the Chapter II Regime which was held not to be in accordance with the law.
The Chamber also found, by six votes to one, a violation of Article 10 as regards both the section 8(4) and the Chapter II regimes.
On 4 February 2019 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request.
Leave a Reply