WEBER AND SARAVIA v. GERMANY DECISION
15
the G 10 Act. The same applied if the person concerned had learned of the
monitoring measure by another means, without having been notified.
4. The new G 10 Act
62. A new version of the G 10 Act, which takes into account the
principles laid down by the Federal Constitutional Court in its judgment of
14 July 1999, came into force on 26 June 2001.
COMPLAINTS
63. The applicants claimed that certain provisions of the Fight Against
Crime Act amending the G 10 Act, in their versions as interpreted and
modified by the Federal Constitutional Court in its judgment of 14 July
1999, violated their right to respect for their private life and their
correspondence as protected by Article 8 of the Convention. They
complained in particular about section 3(1), (3), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of the
amended G 10 Act.
64. The first applicant further argued that the same provisions of the
Fight Against Crime Act infringed freedom of the press as guaranteed by
Article 10 of the Convention.
65. The applicants also submitted that the destruction of data
(section 3(6) and (7), read in conjunction with section 7(4)), the failure to
give notice of restrictions on the secrecy of telecommunications
(section 3(8)) and the exclusion of judicial review in certain cases
(section 9(6)) in accordance with the Act breached Article 13 of the
Convention.
THE LAW
A. The Government’s objections
1. The parties’ submissions
(a) The Government
66. The Government argued, firstly, that the application was
incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. Both
applicants resided in Uruguay and claimed that their Convention rights had
been infringed as regards telecommunications from their telephone
connections in that country. The monitoring of telecommunications made
from abroad, however, had to be qualified as an extraterritorial act. In