WEBER AND SARAVIA v. GERMANY DECISION
17
of secret monitoring that they could not prove that they had actually been
subjected to it. However, it was very likely that because of their activities
they had used catchwords, within the meaning of section 3(2) of the G 10
Act, which had caused their communications to be recorded and analysed.
2. The Court’s assessment
72. The Court does not consider it necessary in the present case to rule
on the objections made by the Government since, even assuming that the
application is compatible ratione personae with the Convention, that
domestic remedies have been exhausted and that both applicants can claim
to be victims of Convention violations, it considers that the application is in
any event inadmissible for the reasons set out below.
B. Complaints under Article 8 of the Convention
73. The applicants submitted 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, violated their right to respect
for their private life and their correspondence.
74. In particular, the applicants complained about five measures. Firstly,
they complained about the process of strategic monitoring (section 3(1)
taken in conjunction with section 1(1), point 2, of the G 10 Act). Secondly,
they contested the transmission and use of personal data pursuant to
section 3(3), second sentence, of the G 10 Act. Thirdly, they complained
about the transmission of personal data to the Offices for the Protection of
the Constitution and other authorities and its use by them pursuant to
section 3(5) of the G 10 Act. Fourthly, they contested the destruction of
personal data under section 3(6) and (7) taken in conjunction with
section 7(4) of the G 10 Act. Finally, they contested the provision
authorising the refusal to give notice of restrictions on the secrecy of
telecommunications (section 3(8) of the G 10 Act).
75. The applicants relied on Article 8 of the Convention which, in so far
as relevant, reads:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life, ... 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.”
1. Whether there was an interference
76. The Government conceded that the impugned provisions of the
amended G 10 Act, in so far as they authorised the monitoring of