28
LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
of the Convention complaint and to grant relief. The 1985 Act, however,
provided no remedy for an interference where there had been a breach of the
section 6 “arrangements” in a particular case.
A. Admissibility
72. The Court notes that this 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.
B. Merits
73. However, in the light of its above finding that the system for
interception of external communications under the 1985 Act was not
formulated with sufficient clarity to give the individual adequate protection
against arbitrary interference, the Court does not consider that it is necessary
to examine separately the complaint under Article 13.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
74. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols
thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to
the injured party.”
A. Damage
75. The applicant submitted that the application related to allegations of
unlawful interception of communications over a period of approximately
seven years (1990-1997), and claimed EUR 3,000 each, making a total of
EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
76. The Government referred to a number of other cases involving
covert surveillance where the Court held that the finding of a violation was
sufficient just satisfaction (Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97,
ECHR 2000-V; Armstrong v. the United Kingdom, no. 48521/99,
16 July 2002; Taylor-Sabori v. the United Kingdom, no. 47114/99,
22 October 2002; Hewitson v. the United Kingdom, no. 50015/99, 29 May
2003; Chalkley v. the United Kingdom, no. 63831/00, 12 June 2003) and
submitted that no financial compensation for non-pecuniary damage would
be necessary in the present case.