KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
55
decision to place a person under surveillance (see § 75 of the Court's
judgment). However, the matter was considered by the former Commission
in its prior report (Klass and Others, no. 5029/71, Report of the
Commission, Series B no. 26, pp 35 to 37, §§ 57 to 61). In particular, the
Commission noted (§ 58):
“... Supervisory measures of the kind in question are typical acts of State authority
in the public interest and carried out jure imperii. They cannot be questioned before
any courts in many legal systems. They do not at all directly concern private rights.
The Commission concludes therefore, that [Article] 6 does not apply to this kind of
State interference on security grounds.”
178. In its recent ruling on the applicability of Article 6 § 1 to
proceedings concerning secret surveillance in Association for European
Integration and Human Rights, cited above, § 106, the Court referred
generally to the finding of the Commission in its report in the case of Klass
and Others that Article 6 § 1 was not applicable in either its civil or criminal
limb. In the absence of submissions from the parties on the matter, the Court
concluded that nothing in the circumstances of the case before it altered the
conclusion in the Klass and Others report and that there was therefore no
violation of Article 6 § 1.
179. The Court notes that, in the present case, the IPT was satisfied that
rights of confidentiality and of privacy for person, property and
communications enjoyed a broad level of protection in English private law
and that the proceedings before the tribunal therefore involved the
determination of “civil rights” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. The
Court recalls that, according to its case-law, the concept of “civil rights and
obligations” cannot be interpreted solely by reference to the domestic law of
the respondent State. It has on several occasions affirmed the principle that
this concept is “autonomous”, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention (see Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, § 24, ECHR
2001-VII; and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119,
ECHR 2005-X). However, in the present case, it is unnecessary to reach a
conclusion as to whether Article 6 § 1 applies to proceedings of this nature
as, for the reasons outlined below, assuming that Article 6 § 1 applies to the
proceedings, the Court considers that the IPT's rules of procedure complied
with the requirements of Article 6 § 1.
2. Compliance with Article 6 § 1
a. The parties' submissions
180. The applicant recalled that restrictions on court proceedings could
only be compatible with Article 6 § 1 where they pursued a legitimate aim
and there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the
means employed and the aim sought to be pursued. Further, limitations
could not impair the very essence of fair trial rights and any restrictions had