32
WEBER AND SARAVIA v. GERMANY DECISION
(vi) Conclusion
137. In the light of the above considerations, the Court, having regard to
all the impugned provisions of the amended G 10 Act in their legislative
context, finds that there existed adequate and effective guarantees against
abuses of the State’s strategic monitoring powers. It is therefore satisfied
that the respondent State, within its fairly wide margin of appreciation in
that sphere, was entitled to consider the interferences with the secrecy of
telecommunications resulting from the impugned provisions to have been
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security and for
the prevention of crime.
138. Accordingly, the applicants’ complaints under Article 8 of the
Convention must be dismissed as being manifestly ill-founded, in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
C. Complaints under Article 10 of the Convention
139. In the first applicant’s submission, certain provisions of the Fight
Against Crime Act, as interpreted and modified by the Federal
Constitutional Court, amounted to a violation of freedom of the press. She
based her complaints on the same provisions of the Act as under Article 8 of
the Convention (see paragraph 74 above). She relied on Article 10 of the
Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads:
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include
freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without
interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. ...
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities,
may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of
national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or
crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or
rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence,
or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
1. The parties’ submissions
(a) The Government
140. In the Government’s view, the impugned provisions of the
amended G 10 Act did not interfere with the first applicant’s freedom of
expression. Strategic monitoring measures were not aimed at restricting the
expression of opinions or the receipt of information, which would in fact
have contravened the purposes of the surveillance. The secrecy of
communications was protected by Article 8 alone.
141. The Government further argued that, even assuming that there had
been an interference with the rights protected under Article 10, the