44
SZABÓ AND VISSY v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT
without an assessment of strict necessity, that new technologies enable the
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 concludes
that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 6 AND ARTICLE 13 READ
IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
90. The applicants further complained that their exposure to secret
surveillance measures without judicial control or remedy amounted to a
violation of their rights under Article 6 as well as Article 13 read in
conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.
91. The Government contested that argument.
92. The Court notes that these complaints are linked to the one examined
above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
93. The Court reiterates that Article 13 cannot be interpreted as requiring
a remedy against the state of domestic law (see Ostrovar v. Moldova,
no. 35207/03, § 113, 13 September 2005; Iordachi, cited above, § 56). In
these circumstances, the Court finds no breach of Article 13 of the
Convention taken together with Article 8.
94. Moreover, having regard to the finding relating to Article 8 (see
paragraph 89 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine
whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Articles 6 of the
Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
95. 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
96. Each applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of nonpecuniary damage.
97. The Government found the claim excessive.
98. The Court considers that in the circumstances of the present case the
finding of a violation of Article 8 constitutes in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained.