BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
an individual to prior internal authorisation (see paragraphs 377-382 above).
These weaknesses concerned not only the interception of the contents of
communications but also the interception of related communications data
(see paragraph 416 above). While the IC Commissioner provided
independent and effective oversight of the regime, and the IPT offered a
robust judicial remedy to anyone who suspected that his or her
communications had been intercepted by the intelligence services, these
important safeguards were not sufficient to counterbalance the shortcomings
highlighted at paragraphs 377-382 above.
426. In view of the aforementioned shortcomings, the Court finds that
section 8(4) did not meet the “quality of law” requirement and was therefore
incapable of keeping the “interference” to what was “necessary in a
democratic society”.
427. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the
Convention.
C. The alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention
428. The applicants in both the second and the third of the joined cases
complained under Article 10 of the Convention about the section 8(4)
regime, arguing that the protection afforded by Article 10 to privileged
communications was of critical importance to them as journalists and NGOs
respectively. However, as the Chamber declared the complaint by the
applicants in the third of the joined cases inadmissible for failure to exhaust
domestic remedies, only the Article 10 complaint relating to journalists is
within the scope of the case referred to the Grand Chamber.
429. Article 10 of the Convention provides:
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include
freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without
interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not
prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities,
may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of
national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or
crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or
rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence,
or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
1. The Chamber judgment
430. The Chamber found that as the surveillance measures under the
section 8(4) regime were not aimed at monitoring journalists or uncovering
journalistic sources, the interception of such communications could not, by
itself, be characterised as a particularly serious interference with freedom of
129