BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
were mostly operational by the summer of 2018. The provisions of
Chapter I of Part I of RIPA were repealed in the course of 2018.
270. The Chamber reviewed the Convention compliance of the law in
force on the date it examined the admissibility of the applicants’ complaints;
that is, it considered the law as is stood on 7 November 2017. As this is the
“application as it has been declared admissible”, the Grand Chamber must
similarly limit its examination to the legislative regime as is stood on
7 November 2017. This is apposite, since the legal regimes phased in
following the entry into force of the IPA are currently subject to challenge
before the domestic courts and it would not be open to the Grand Chamber
to examine the new legislation before those courts have first had the
opportunity to do so.
271. The applicants have not challenged the Chamber’s finding that the
Investigatory Powers Tribunal (“IPT”) is now an effective remedy for both
individual complaints and general complaints concerning the Convention
compliance of a surveillance regime, and the Government have not
challenged its finding that in the circumstances of the case the applicants
had exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of
the Convention. Neither issue therefore falls to be considered by the Grand
Chamber.
II. THE BULK INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS
A. Territorial jurisdiction
272. In respect of the section 8(4) regime, the Government raised no
objection under Article 1 of the Convention, nor did they suggest that the
interception of communications was taking place outside the State’s
territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, during the hearing before the Grand
Chamber the Government expressly confirmed that they had raised no
objection on this ground as at least some of the applicants were clearly
within the State’s territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, for the purposes of the
present case, the Court will proceed on the assumption that, in so far as the
applicants complain about the section 8(4) regime, the matters complained
of fell within the jurisdictional competence of the United Kingdom.
B. The alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention
273. The applicants in all three of the joined cases complained that the
regime for the bulk interception of communications was incompatible with
Article 8 of the Convention, which reads:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and
his correspondence.
83