Surveillance by intelligence services – Volume II: field perspectives and legal update
The 2015 FRA report highlighted that non-judicial
avenues are usually more accessible to individuals
than judicial mechanisms because the procedural rules
are less strict, bringing complaints is less costly, and
proceedings are faster. In the 28 EU Member States,
non-judicial bodies such as DPAs, expert bodies,
executive bodies, parliamentary committees, and
ombuds institutions offer remedies.
Table 6:
Twenty-five Member States have empowered at least
one of their oversight bodies or their ombuds institution
with remedial power. In three Member States – the
Czech Republic, Latvia and Poland – no non-judicial body
is available, and individuals can lodge a complaint only
with a judge. (As further discussed below, the United
Kingdom’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal is not a nonjudicial body, but also does not qualify as an ordinary
court.) Table 6 shows the types of non-judicial bodies
with remedial powers in the Member States.
Non-judicial bodies with remedial powers in the context of surveillance, by EU Member State
Executive
(ministry)
Expert
body(ies)
DPA
AT
✓
✓
BE
✓
✓
BG
✓
CY
✓
Parliamentary
committee(s)
Ombuds
institution
✓
✓
✓
CZ
DE
✓
DK
✓
✓
✓
EE
(acts as a filter: only reasonable
complaints are sent to the PKGr)
✓
EL
✓
ES
✓
FI
✓
✓
FR
✓
✓
HR
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
HU
✓
IE
✓
✓
IT
✓
LT
✓
LU
✓
✓
LV
MT
✓
NL*
✓
✓
PL
PT
✓
✓
RO
✓
SE
✓
SI
✓
✓
SK
✓
✓
✓
UK**
Notes:
* Table reflects the situation under the Intelligence and Security Services Act 2017 and will be applicable when the
relevant sections enter into force.
** The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, although not an ordinary court, cannot be classified as a non-judicial body.
Source:
112
FRA, 2017