c. The existence of intrusion as a result of electronic searching must
not be overstated, and indeed must be understood to be minimal.
d. There is no evidence of inhibition upon, or discouragement of, the
lawful use of telephonic communication. Indeed the reverse is the
case.
e. Requirements or safeguards are necessary but must not, as the
Respondents put it, eviscerate or cripple public protection,
particularly at a time of high threat.
51.
Notwithstanding that communication of personal data to a public authority
constitutes an interference with the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 7
and 8 of the Charter, all these submissions appear to us to have considerable
force.
52.
The Respondents further submit that the Watson Requirements (or any other
safeguards considered by the Grand Chamber to be appropriate over and
above any consideration of the ECHR) should not be treated as legal
requirements.
The Claimant accepts that questions of proportionality are
matters for the national court and not the European Court, which will instead
set out principles by reference to which proportionality will be assessed; but
the Respondents submit that what is being created by reference to the Grand
Chamber’s judgments in DRI and now in Watson, if applicable, is that legal
requirements are being laid down with which the Member States must comply
in order for their conduct to be in accordance with law. Mr Eadie submits that
the margin of appreciation should be applicable, as in all questions of
proportionality, and that, as he puts it, the greatest possible breadth of
Page 46