The remedial route
“You should also be aware that many people speculate about
the intelligence services, and also many people who have
personal or psychological issues also speculate a lot about
that.” (Expert body)
Respondents representing institutions with remedial
powers were asked to describe potential or frequent
complainants. Most respondents felt that the usual/
typical complainants shared common characteristics,
particularly implying that these are people with
mental health problems. In describing potential or
usual complainants, they chose their words carefully.
The most common and neutral description of
complainants was ‘people who have difficulties’. The
respondents also referred to complainants as having
psychological problems, with some describing them as
‘paranoid’, ‘mythomaniacs’, and ‘people who are quite
simply suffering from a persecution complex’. Some
respondents voiced concern about individuals lodging
‘frivolous complaints’. Several noted that, in the absence
of notification or other ways for individuals to access
information collected about them by the intelligence
services, complaints are based on assumptions or
speculation about allegedly unlawful activity by
the intelligence services.
“Eighty per cent of complaints from individuals come from
persons with mental health problems or are manifestly
unfounded cases. In this type of case, an internal process has
been put in place to forewarn the prosecutor’s office.”
(Expert body)
“A significant part of the people who file complaints tend to
have psychological problems.” (Judiciary)
Frivolous complaints
“Concerns about frivolous or vexatious complaints may
be remedied by rules allowing the complaint-handling
body to dismiss such complaints early in the process. But
caution should be exercised to avoid dismissing complaints that are difficult, politically controversial, or simply brought by difficult people.”
Born and Wills (2012), p. 193
Information about the number of complaints is publicly
available in a limited number of EU Member States.
Information from the annual reports of expert bodies
in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden
is provided below.
In 2015, the Belgian expert body received 22 individuals’
complaints (compared to 31 in 2014).488 In 2014, most
of them were dismissed (28 out of 31). By contrast, in
2015, 14 were rejected because they were ill-founded
488 Belgium, Standing Committee I (2015), p. 7.
or the Standing Committee I found that it was not
competent to process the complaint.489 The remaining
eight complaints were thoroughly investigated. One
concerned an individual who complained about being
under “oppressive” surveillance by the intelligence
services. The Standing Committee I concluded that
the services carried out surveillance but that the
surveillance was probably carried out by a foreign
service. The Standing Committee I raised the question
whether the intelligence services had a ‘positive
obligation’ under the constitution or the ECHR to protect
a resident against possibly unfounded accusations by
a foreign service. 490 The Standing Committee I must
inform individuals about their investigations’ results
in general terms. A specific complaint procedure,
taking into account the necessary confidentiality of
the intelligence services’ operations and the need for
transparency, has been established by law with the
introduction of the ‘targeted surveillance measures’.491
The German G 10 Commission functions as a quasijudicial institution492 empowered with the ability to
handle complaints, either in relation to targeted or
strategic surveillance.493 In 2015, the G 10 Commission
received 16 complaints from citizens who believed that
they were under surveillance. The commission could
not establish any violation of their right to privacy
(Article 10 of the constitution).494 Concerning the cases
brought before the administrative courts by individuals
who received a notification that they had been under
surveillance, the G10 Commission reported in 2015 that
14 complaints followed notification, six of which were
assessed within the same year.495
In the Netherlands, in 2016, the CTIVD handled
11 complaints related to the AIVD (as compare to seven
from April to December 2015). None of these were found
to be fully well-founded, and three (four in 2015) were
deemed partly well-founded. The minister followed
the committee’s opinion in all cases. 496 The previous
annual report (covering the period 2014–2015) referred
to 10 complaints, four of which were deemed partially
489 Belgium, Standing Committee I (2016), p. 7.
490 Ibid. p. 37–41.
491 Vande Walle, G. (2013), p. 258, and Belgium, Organic Law
of 30 November 1998 on intelligence and security services
(Loi organique du 30 Novembre 1998 des services de
renseignement et de sécurité), 30 November 1998, as
amended, Art. 43/4.
492 Wetzling, T. (2017), p. 5.
493 Germany, G 10 Act, S. 15.
494 Germany, Federal Parliament (Deutscher Bundestag) (2017a),
p. 6. In 2014, the G 10 Commission received 14 complaints,
see Germany, Federal Parliament (Deutscher Bundestag)
(2016b), p. 6 and in 2013, 21 complaints, see Germany,
Federal Parliament (Deutscher Bundestag) (2015), p. 6.
495 Germany, Federal Parliament (Deutscher Bundestag) (2017a),
p. 6 and 8. See Wöckel, H. in Dietrich, J.-H. and Eiffler, S. (eds)
(2017), p. 1607 and following.
496 The Netherlands, CTIVD (2016a), p. 17 and following and The
Netherlands, CTIVD (2017), p. 23 and following.
119