Features of oversight bodies
In general, expert bodies’ reports describe the
surveillance legislation in the Member State concerned
and outline the particular expert body’s mandate,
powers and internal functioning. Depending on
these powers, the expert bodies present statistics
on authorisations of surveillance measures and the
ex post controls and investigations they conducted.
In exceptional cases – for instance, in France and
Germany – the number of individuals that were under
surveillance during the reporting period is stated, as
well as the purpose pursued by the surveillance. In
France, the CNCTR has the possibility to publish the
total number of people under surveillance because it
controls all surveillance techniques in France. Between 3
October 2015 and 2 October 2016, 20,282 persons were
subjected to a surveillance technique.361 In Germany, the
Parliamentary Control Panel publishes information on
the number of individuals under targeted surveillance
(pursuant to Section 3 of the G 10 Law). In 2015, there were
336 primary targeted persons (Hauptbetroffene) during
the first semester and 322 in the second half of the year;
and 249 indirectly targeted persons (Nebenbetroffene)
during the first semester and 224 during the second.
This means that 1,502 telecommunication connections
(Telekommunikationsanschlüsse) were tapped during
the first semester, and 1,336 during the second
half of 2015.362
The Belgian Standing Committee I also publishes
very detailed numerical information on surveillance
authorisation issued to the services. These are
separated according to each service and each
surveillance method (specific and exceptional).363 Where
applicable, most annual reports contain statistics on the
outcomes of complaints by individuals. Some expert
bodies also report on their interactions with other
domestic institutions and foreign expert bodies. Given
that the expert bodies in parallel have an advisory
role, some of them provide, in their annual reports,
recommendations to governments concerning good
practices and legislative improvements.
statistics does not reveal the factors affecting the
number of interceptions, or the techniques used for such
purposes. In addition, it does not influence the priorities
or reveal sensitive information on the technical capacity
of the intelligence services. Therefore, it has claimed
that national security is not endangered.364 Based on
the CTIVD’s opinion, the Dutch Council of State in 2016
annulled a decision of the Minister of Interior not to
make tapping statistics available to the NGO Bits of
Freedom following a Freedom of Information request.365
Parliamentary reports focus on the number of hearings
conducted and the list of witnesses heard. Annual
reports rarely provide details about the content of the
hearings. However, this is done, for example, in Italy and
the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, reporting
on the hearings is not limited to a brief summary of
the proceedings. An extensive degree of transparency
is achieved by providing links to the full transcripts of
the proceedings. Parliamentary committees tend to
report on the budget of the intelligence services as
well as the threats the intelligence services focused on
during the reporting period. Parliamentary committees
also provide explanations of the oversight methods
used to gather information from the intelligence
services and, when applicable, present statistics on
the investigations conducted and the outcome of
complaints received by individuals.
The Dutch CTIVD has criticised the ban on the publication
of the number of wire taps performed by the intelligence
services. It has noted that publishing mere tapping
Overall, an analysis of the reports of expert bodies and
parliamentary committees in several Member States
shows that particularly in Belgium, France and United
Kingdom, expert bodies or parliamentary committees
have substantially taken into account transparency
requirements. Their reports are accessible and provide
detailed overviews of the concerned oversight
systems and the results these produce, depending on
their competence (e.g. extensive statistics on use of
surveillance techniques, authorisations, ex post controls
and complaints-handling). They also make use of their
advisory role towards the government and outline
recommendations regarding current practices and
legislative reforms, while informing the public about
the inter-institutional dialogue they conducted during
the reporting period.
361 France, CNCTR (2016), p. 73.
362 Germany, Federal Parliament (2017), p. 5.
363 Belgium, Standing Committee I (2016), p. 49 and following.
364 The Netherlands, CTIVD (2012), pp. 26-28.
365 The Netherlands, Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the
Council of State (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad
van State) (2016), Case no. 201505432/1/A3, 4 May 2016.
89