SZABÓ AND VISSY v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT
25
Article 8 provides as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and
his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right
except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society
in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,
or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
27. The Government contested these allegations.
A. Admissibility
1. The parties’ submissions
28. The Government did not formally contest the applicants’ potential
victim status within the meaning of the Court’s jurisprudence, under which
the mere existence of a piece of legislation allowing for the use of secret
intelligence devices served as a ground for victim status, even if no such
device had ever been used against an applicant. However, the Government
disputed the applicants’ allegations that – as staff members of a watchdog
organisation – they were affected more directly by the possibility of being
subjected to secret surveillance than others.
29. Moreover, the Government submitted that in their constitutional
complaint the applicants had not complained about the presence or absence
of guarantees in the entire process of secret intelligence gathering. They had
only complained about the authorisation by the Minister of Justice of the
interference and the data handling following the termination of the
interference. The Government emphasised that in respect of any further
complaints that the applicants might have in relation to other phases of the
process, they had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies.
30. Regarding victim status, the applicants emphasised that the lack of
meaningful external control over the use of covert surveillance had put
individuals’ privacy in danger as nothing prevented the political power from
using this prerogative arbitrarily. Their watchdog activity might not serve as
a ground for secret intelligence gathering. Nevertheless, their
statement - according to which they, as staff members of watchdog
organisations voicing criticism against the Government, felt more frustrated
and worried about being subjected to secret surveillance than average
citizens probably did – could not be regarded as fear based on completely
unfounded assumptions, especially if considering some of the Government’s
recent measures as being directed against civil organisations.
31. Concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies, the applicants did not
dispute that their constitutional complaint had been focused on the system
of authorisation, since only the safeguards built into this phase were able to