of “communications data”, in particular with regard to their
impact on non-governmental organisations and their confidential
information and communications;
“prescribed by law”, and “necessary in a democratic society” in the
pursuit of a legitimate aim, within the meaning of Article 10 of the
Convention reference to the principles set out in, among other
authorities, Nordisk Film & TV A/S v Denmark, no. 40485/02, 8 December
2005; Financial Times Ltd and Others v the United Kingdom, no 821/03,
15 December 2009; Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media B.V.
and Others v the Netherlands, no. 39315/06, 22 November 2012; and
Nagla v. Latvia, no. 73469/10, 16 July 2013?
No, for the reasons set out at paras 127-250 and 286-294 above.
Question 4
Did the proceedings before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal involve
the determination of “civil rights and obligations” within the meaning
of Article 6 § 1 (Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 75,
Series A no.28)?
Yes, for the reasons set out at paras 272-279 above.
Question 5
If so, were the restrictions in the IPT proceedings, taken as a whole,
disproportionate or did they impair the very essence of the applicants’
right to a fair trial (see Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, §
186, 18 May 2010)?
Yes, for the reasons set out at paras 280-285 above.
Question 6.
Has there been a violation of Article 14, taken together with Article 8
and/or Article 10, on account of the fact that the safeguards set out in
section 16 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 grants
additional safeguards to people known to be in the British Islands?
Yes, for the reasons set out at paras 262-271 above.
115