In the case of Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights held the UK in violation of Article 8 and Article 10
"The case concerned complaints by journalists and human-rights organisations in regard to three different surveillance regimes:
- (1) the bulk interception of communications;
- (2) the receipt of intercept material from foreign governments and intelligence agencies;
- (3) the obtaining of communications data from communication service providers.
On the 25 May 2021 the Grand Chamber judgment1 in the case of Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom (PDF) (application nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24969/15) the European Court of Human Rights held:
- unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention (right to respect for private and family life/communications) in respect of the bulk intercept regime;
- unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 in respect of the regime for obtaining communications data from communication service providers;
- by 12 votes to 5, that there had been no violation of Article 8 in respect of the United Kingdom’s regime for requesting intercepted material from foreign Governments and intelligence agencies;
- unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression), concerning both the bulk interception regime and the regime for obtaining communications data from communication service providers; and
- by 12 votes to 5, that there had been no violation of Article 10 in respect of the regime for requesting intercepted material from foreign Governments and intelligence agencies. (Press Release)
DECISIONS OF THE COURT
- "Regime for bulk interception ... shortcomings meant that the bulk interception regime had been incapable of keeping the “interference” with citizens’ private life rights to what had been “necessary in a democratic society”. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention."
- "Acquisition of data from communications service providers .... The Court agreed with the Chamber’s findings, which the government had not contested, that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the fact that the operation of the regime had not been “in accordance with the law”."
- "Article 10 The Court reiterated that the protection of a journalist’s sources was one of the cornerstones of the freedom of the press. Undermining this protection would have a detrimental impact on the vital public-watchdog role of the press and its ability to provide accurate and reliable information. The Court was therefore concerned that UK law governing the bulk interception of communications had contained no requirement that the use of selectors or search terms known to be connected to a journalist be authorised by a judge or other independent and impartial decision-making body." (Press Release)
____
See also:
Make A Comment
Comments (0)