40
CENTRUM FÖR RÄTTVISA v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT
performing signals intelligence. Thus, a requirement of prior judicial
authorisation constitutes an important safeguard against arbitrariness
(Roman Zakharov, cited above, § 249). Nevertheless, prior authorisation of
such measures is not an absolute requirement per se, because where there is
extensive subsequent judicial oversight, this may counterbalance the
shortcomings of the authorisation (Szabó and Vissy, cited above, § 77).
134. Under Swedish law, signals intelligence conducted by the FRA
must be authorised in advance by the Foreign Intelligence Court. The
president of the court is a permanent judge, whereas the vice president and
other members are appointed by the Government on four-year terms.
Neither Parliament nor the Government or other authorities may interfere
with the court’s decision-making, which is legally binding.
135. The main rule is that the court shall hold public hearings but, when
secrecy applies, hearings may be held in private. As submitted by the
applicant, and confirmed by the Government, the court’s activities are in
practice covered by complete secrecy. A hearing has never been open to the
public and all decisions are confidential. As noted by the applicant, no
information is disclosed to the public about the number of hearings, the
number of permits granted or rejected, the reasoning of the court’s decisions
or the amount or type of search terms being used.
136. The Court is mindful of the fact that the nature of signals
intelligence requires that surveillance is done in secret (see paragraph 101
above). It must therefore be accepted that, where there is a system of prior
authorisation, sensitive aspects of the authorising body’s activities are
withheld from the public for as long as required in the individual case, in
order not to defeat the purpose of the signals intelligence. However, such a
procedure could only be accepted where there are adequate safeguards in
place.
137. The Government have submitted that the lack of transparency is
compensated by the presence of the privacy protection representative. He or
she must be present during the court’s examination, except in very urgent
cases. The representative is either a present or former permanent judge or
attorney and has access to all the case documents and may make statements.
He or she does not appear on behalf of any individual concerned by the
signals intelligence permit at issue, but protects the interests of the general
public.
138. The Court is of the view that, while the privacy protection
representative cannot appeal against a decision by the Foreign Intelligence
Court or report any perceived irregularities to the supervisory bodies, the
presence of the representative at the court’s examinations compensates, to a
limited degree, for the lack of transparency concerning the court’s
proceedings and decisions.
139. More importantly, taking into account that proceedings and
decisions relating to secret surveillance largely require secrecy, the Court