Surveillance by intelligence services – Volume II: field perspectives and legal update
Wales or the Court of Session, whichever appears to be
the most appropriate to the court.567
Previous sections identified two main challenges for both
judicial and non-judicial remedial bodies in reviewing
complaints: denials of access to classified information and
a lack of expertise, much needed in such a complex area.
However, FRA’s research findings show that innovative
systems introduced in some Member States – alternative
mechanisms to access classified data, complementarity
between remedial and expert bodies, establishment of
quasi-judicial bodies and adapted adversarial procedures –
may circumvent the main obstacles to judicial bodies
implementing effective remedies, by introducing partial
567 United Kingdom, Investigatory Powers Act (2016), s. 67A.
Not yet in force and will be brought into force in due course
by means of regulations made by the Secretary of State
(See United Kingdom, Investigatory Powers Act 2016,
Explanatory Note).
134
access to information and a certain level of expertise.
On this basis, remedial bodies will have the ability to
perform informed investigations and deliver reasoned
decisions. An effective remedy is secured when a binding
decision includes the order to terminate the surveillance
measure, destroy the data and provide individuals with
appropriate compensation. Less than two thirds of
EU Member States provide remedial bodies with both
access to the information and binding decisions. General
surveillance of communications makes effective remedies
even more difficult to implement. Remedies can only be
provided on an individual basis, i.e. after identification of
the individual who has submitted a complaint within the
general data collected.