BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
532. The Chamber awarded the applicants in the first of the joined cases
the sum of EUR 150,000 for the proceedings before it; and the applicants in
the second of the joined cases the sum of EUR 35,000 for the proceedings
before it.
533. Before the Grand Chamber the applicants in the first of the joined
cases claimed a further GBP 138,036.66; the applicants in the second of the
joined cases claimed a further GBP 69,200.20; and the applicants in the
third of the joined cases claimed GBP 44,993.60.
534. The Government contested the quantum claimed.
535. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown
that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as
to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its
possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award
the following sums covering costs under all heads for the proceedings
before the Chamber: to the applicants in the first of the joined cases the sum
of EUR 150,000; and the applicants in the second of the joined cases the
sum of EUR 35,000. It also considers it reasonable to award the following
sums covering costs under all heads for the proceedings before the Grand
Chamber: to the applicants in the first of the joined cases, the sum of
EUR 77,500; to the applicants in the second of the joined cases, the sum of
EUR 55,000; and to the applicants in the third of the joined cases, the sum
of EUR 36,000.
C. Default interest
536. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate
should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank,
to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
1. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the
Convention in respect of the section 8(4) regime;
2. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the
Convention in respect of the Chapter II regime;
3. Holds, by twelve votes to five, that there has been no violation of
Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the receipt of intelligence from
foreign intelligence services;
4. Holds, unanimously, that, in so far as it was raised by the applicants in
the second of the joined cases, there has been a violation of Article 10 of
156