satisfactory in order to comply with the ECHR, remains for our further
consideration. What is however clear is that it has not, at any rate to date,
been any part of the ECHR issues before us, or of the submissions by the
Claimant, that there should be an absolute bar upon the transfer of data out of
the European Union to an allied State, including a former Member State.
Conclusion on Watson Requirements
69.
We have carefully considered the evidence before us, both from the Claimant
and the Respondents, and we are persuaded that if the Watson Requirements
do apply to measures taken to safeguard national security, in particular the
BCD regime, they would frustrate them and put the national security of the
United Kingdom, and, it may be, other Member States, at risk. It is to be
hoped that, whether by reconsideration, or clarification, of paragraph 119 of
the Judgment, or otherwise, the Grand Chamber will take the opportunity to
consider whether any further statement than that the safeguarding provisions
of the ECHR should apply is required.
Reference
70.
By the end of the hearing it was clear that both parties either agreed to or saw
the necessity for a reference to the Grand Chamber, and the need for it is, we
suggest, obvious from this Judgment, for the reasons which we have already
given and summarise below. Neither party in the event contended that the
questions we have considered are either acte clair, or acte éclairé as a result of
the Watson judgment.
Page 56