KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
59
considers that the “neither confirm nor deny” policy of the Government
could be circumvented if an application to the IPT resulted in a complainant
being advised whether interception had taken place. In the circumstances, it
is sufficient that an applicant be advised that no determination has been in
his favour. The Court further notes in this regard that, in the event that a
complaint is successful, the complainant is entitled to have information
regarding the findings of fact in his case (see paragraph 87 above).
190. In light of the above considerations, the Court considers that the
restrictions on the procedure before the IPT did not violate the applicant's
right to a fair trial. In reaching this conclusion, the Court emphasises the
breadth of access to the IPT enjoyed by those complaining about
interception within the United Kingdom and the absence of any evidential
burden to be overcome in order to lodge an application with the IPT. In
order to ensure the efficacy of the secret surveillance regime, and bearing in
mind the importance of such measures to the fight against terrorism and
serious crime, the Court considers that the restrictions on the applicant's
rights in the context of the proceedings before the IPT were both necessary
and proportionate and did not impair the very essence of the applicant's
Article 6 rights.
191. Accordingly, assuming that Article 6 § 1 applies to the proceedings
in question, there has been no violation of that Article.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
192. The applicant further complained that he had no effective remedy
in respect of the alleged violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention.
He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which provides insofar as
relevant as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated
shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the
violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
A. Admissibility
193. The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that
it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.