SZABÓ AND VISSY v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT
29
It is of importance at this juncture to note that they are staff members of a
watchdog organisation, whose activities have previously been found similar,
in some ways, to those of journalists (see Társaság a Szabadságjogokért
v. Hungary, no. 37374/05, § 36, 14 April 2009). The Court accepts the
applicants’ suggestion that any fear of being subjected to secret surveillance
might have an impact on such activities (see, mutatis mutandis, Nagla
v. Latvia, no. 73469/10, § 82, 16 July 2013). In any case, whether or not the
applicants belong to a targeted group, the Court considers that the
legislation directly affects all users of communication systems and all
homes.
39. Considering in addition that the domestic law does not appear to
provide any possibility for an individual who alleges interception of his or
her communications to lodge a complaint with an independent body, the
Court is of the view that the applicants can claim to be victims of a violation
of their rights under the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 of the
Convention.
40. Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court is
satisfied that the applicants brought to the attention of the national
authorities, in the instant case the Constitutional Court, the essence of their
grievance, that is, the alleged insufficiency of guarantees in the rules
governing “section 7/E (3) surveillance”. While noting the Government’s
objection according to which this constitutional complaint was focused on
but a few central issues, the Court considers that, because of the nature of
the problem, the system of guarantees preceding the measures, prevailing
during their application and following it is a complex set of arrangements
which must be assessed in its entirety (see Klass and Others, cited above,
§§ 39 to 60). Consequently – and assuming that the procedure before the
Constitutional Court was at all an effective remedy to exhaust in the
circumstances – the fact that the applicants’ constitutional complaint did not
encompass all possible issues but highlighted a few cannot be held against
them so as to enable the rejection of their complaints on account of
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, in so far as their representations made
to the Court on these issues can be seen as supplementing the ones
submitted to the Constitutional Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Gustafsson
v. Sweden, 25 April 1996, § 51, Reports 1996-II).
41. Moreover, the Court concludes that this complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. No
other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established. It must
therefore be declared admissible.