BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
b. Each supervisory authority shall hear claims lodged by any person concerning
the protection of his/her rights and fundamental freedoms with regard to the
processing of personal data within its competence.
3. The supervisory authorities shall exercise their functions in complete
independence.
4. Decisions of the supervisory authorities, which give rise to complaints, may be
appealed against through the courts.
...”
Article 2 – Transborder flows of personal data to a recipient which is not
subject to the jurisdiction of a Party to the Convention
“1. Each Party shall provide for the transfer of personal data to a recipient that is
subject to the jurisdiction of a State or organisation that is not Party to the Convention
only if that State or organisation ensures an adequate level of protection for the
intended data transfer.
2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1 of Article 2 of this Protocol, each Party
may allow for the transfer of personal data:
a. if domestic law provides for it because of:
– specific interests of the data subject, or
– legitimate prevailing interests, especially important public interests, or
b. if safeguards, which can in particular result from contractual clauses, are
provided by the controller responsible for the transfer and are found adequate by the
competent authorities according to domestic law.”
3. Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers on the protection of
personal data in the area of telecommunication services
195. Recommendation (No. R (95) 4 of the Committee of Ministers),
which was adopted on 7 February 1995, reads, in so far as relevant, as
follows:
“2.4. Interference by public authorities with the content of a communication,
including the use of listening or tapping devices or other means of surveillance or
interception of communications, must be carried out only when this is provided for by
law and constitutes a necessary measure in a democratic society in the interests of:
a. protecting state security, public safety, the monetary interests of the state or the
suppression of criminal offences;
b. protecting the data subject or the rights and freedoms of others.
2.5. In the case of interference by public authorities with the content of a
communication, domestic law should regulate:
a. the exercise of the data subject’s rights of access and rectification;
b. in what circumstances the responsible public authorities are entitled to refuse to
provide information to the person concerned, or delay providing it;
c. storage or destruction of such data.
63