60
KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
B. Merits
1. The parties' submissions
194. The applicant maintained that he had an “arguable claim” under
Articles 6 § 1 and 8, and that the proceedings before the IPT did not afford
him a remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention as it did not
comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1.
195. The Government contended that there was no violation of
Article 13 in the present case. In particular, they argued that the applicant
had no arguable claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 § 1 or
Article 8; that insofar as the applicant's complaints were in essence ones that
challenged the relevant legislative scheme, the Article 13 complaint must
fail (citing Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 77(d), Series A no. 116);
and that in any event the IPT offered an effective remedy.
2. The Court's assessment
196. Having regard to its conclusions in respect of Article 8 and
Article 6 § 1 above, the Court considers that the IPT offered to the applicant
an effective remedy insofar as his complaint was directed towards the
alleged interception of his communications.
197. In respect of the applicant's general complaint under Article 8, the
Court reiterates its case-law to the effect that Article 13 does not require the
law to provide an effective remedy where the alleged violation arises from
primary legislation (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom,
21 February 1986, § 85, Series A no. 98; and Leander, cited above,
§ 77(d)).
198. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 13.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Joins to the merits the Government's objection regarding the applicant's
lack of victim status and declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention and
dismisses in consequence the Government's above-mentioned objection;
3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention.