Government to intercept masses of data easily concerning even persons outside the original range of
operation, and given the absence of any effective remedial measures, let alone judicial ones, the
Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Other articles
Given the finding relating to Article 8, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine the
applicants’ complaint under Article 6 of the Convention.
Lastly, the Court reiterated that Article 13 could not be interpreted as requiring a remedy against the
state of domestic law and therefore found that there had been no violation of Article 13 taken
together with Article 8.
Article 41 (just satisfaction)
The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any
non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It awarded 4,000 for costs and expenses.
Separate opinion
Judge Pinto de Albuquerque expressed a separate opinion which is annexed to the judgment.
The judgment is available only in English.
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive
the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter
@ECHRpress.
Press contacts
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member
States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
4