23
KLASS AND OTHERS v. GERMANY JUGDMENT
the likelihood of such action and the safeguards provided to protect against
it.
The Court has examined above (at paragraphs 51 to 58) the contested
legislation in the light, inter alia, of these considerations. The Court notes in
particular that the G 10 contains various provisions designed to reduce the
effect of surveillance measures to an unavoidable minimum and to ensure
that the surveillance is carried out in strict accordance with the law. In the
absence of any evidence or indication that the actual practice followed is
otherwise, the Court must assume that in the democratic society of the
Federal Republic of Germany, the relevant authorities are properly applying
the legislation in issue.
The Court agrees with the Commission that some compromise between
the requirements for defending democratic society and individual rights is
inherent in the system of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the
judgment of 23 July 1968 in the "Belgian Linguistic" case, Series A no. 6, p.
32, para. 5). As the Preamble to the Convention states, "Fundamental
Freedoms ... are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political
democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of
the Human Rights upon which (the Contracting States) depend". In the
context of Article 8 (art. 8), this means that a balance must be sought
between the exercise by the individual of the right guaranteed to him under
paragraph 1 (art. 8-1) and the necessity under paragraph 2 (art. 8-2) to
impose secret surveillance for the protection of the democratic society as a
whole.
60. In the light of these considerations and of the detailed examination of
the contested legislation, the Court concludes that the German legislature
was justified to consider the interference resulting from that legislation with
the exercise of the right guaranteed by Article 8 para. 1 (art. 8-1) as being
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security and for
the prevention of disorder or crime (Article 8 para. 2) (art. 8-2).
Accordingly, the Court finds no breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the
Convention.
III. ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 (art. 13)
61. The applicants also alleged a breach of Article 13 (art. 13) which
provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this 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."
62. In the applicants’ view, the Contracting States are obliged under
Article 13 (art. 13) to provide an effective remedy for any alleged breach of
the Convention; any other interpretation of this provision would render it