36
WEBER AND SARAVIA v. GERMANY DECISION
telecommunications (section 3(8) of the G 10 Act), and the exclusion of
judicial review of monitoring measures (section 9(6) taken in conjunction
with section 3(1)). They submitted that these measures prevented them from
lodging an effective complaint with the national courts about violations of
their rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. They relied on
Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated
shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the
violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
155. According to the Court’s case-law, Article 13 applies only where
an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a
Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988,
§ 52, Series A no. 131; Voyager Limited v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35045/97,
4 September 2001; Ivison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39030/97,
16 April 2002; and Petersen v. Germany (dec.), nos. 38282/97 and
68891/01, 12 January 2006).
156. The Court has found that the substantive complaints under
Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention are manifestly ill-founded. For similar
reasons, the applicants did not have an “arguable claim” for the purposes of
Article 13, which is therefore not applicable to their case. It follows that this
part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35
§ 4.
For these reasons, the Court by a majority
Declares the application inadmissible.
Vincent BERGER
Registrar
Boštjan M. ZUPANČIČ
President