28
CENTRUM FÖR RÄTTVISA v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT
and repealing Directive 95/46/EC) entered into force. Like the Directive it
replaced, the Regulation does not apply to State activities concerning public
safety, defence and State security (Article 2(2)).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
82. The applicant complained that that Swedish state practice and
legislation concerning signals intelligence had violated and continued to
violate its right to respect for private life and correspondence. The
complaint concerned three time periods: from 2002 to 1 January 2009, from
1 January 2009 to 1 December 2009 and from 1 December 2009 onwards.
The applicant invoked Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and
his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right
except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society
in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,
or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
A. Admissibility
83. The Government questioned whether the applicant had exhausted all
domestic remedies available and left it for the Court to determine the
exhaustion issue. They further submitted that the applicant could not claim
to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 8. With regard to private
life, the Government disputed that such a right was afforded to legal
persons. In any event, they argued that the complaint was manifestly
ill-founded.
84. In regard to the Government’s first objection, the Court notes, as
explained below (see paragraphs 171-177), that there is, in practice, no
remedy which provides detailed grounds in its response to a complainant
who suspects that he or she has had his communications intercepted.
Furthermore, the Government have not pointed to any individual effective
remedy that would have to be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35. The
Court therefore finds that the applicant was not required to bring any
domestic proceedings and accordingly rejects the objection concerning the
exhaustion of domestic remedies.
85. As regards private life, the Court has previously held that it may be
open to doubt whether a legal person can have a private life within the