BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
525. Nevertheless, these provisions only applied where the purpose of
the application was to determine a source; they did not apply in every case
where there was a request for the communications data of a journalist, or
where such collateral intrusion was likely. Furthermore, in cases concerning
access to a journalist’s communications data there were no special
provisions restricting access to the purpose of combating “serious crime”.
Consequently, the Chamber considered that the regime was not “in
accordance with the law” for the purpose of the Article 10 complaint (see
paragraphs 496-499 of the Chamber judgment).
2. The parties’ submissions
526. The parties made no further submissions before the Grand Chamber
in respect of this complaint.
3. The Court’s assessment
527. The Government did not contest the Chamber’s findings before the
Grand Chamber. Furthermore, the latter finds no ground on which to
disagree with the Chamber’s conclusions.
528. Accordingly, the Court considers that in the present case there has
also been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the fact
that the operation of the regime under Chapter II of RIPA was not “in
accordance with the law”.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
529. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols
thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to
the injured party.”
A. Damage
530. The applicants did not submit any claim in respect of pecuniary or
non-pecuniary damage. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no
call to award them any sum on that account.
B. Costs and expenses
531. Before the Chamber the applicants in the first of the joined cases
claimed GBP 208,958.55 in respect of their costs and expenses; and the
applicants in the second of the joined cases claimed GBP 45,127.89. The
applicants in the third of the joined cases made no claim in respect of costs
and expenses.
155