52
CENTRUM FÖR RÄTTVISA v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT
bodies tasked with the supervision and review of the system. The Court’s
finding that the system reveals no significant shortcomings is the result of
an examination in abstracto and does not preclude a review of the State’s
liability under the Convention where, for example, the applicant has been
made aware of an actual interception.
181. Accordingly, making an overall assessment and having regard to
the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities in protecting
national security, the Court finds that the Swedish system of signals
intelligence provides adequate and sufficient guarantees against
arbitrariness and the risk of abuse. The relevant legislation meets the
“quality of law” requirement and the “interference” established can be
considered as being “necessary in a democratic society”. Furthermore, the
structure and operation of the system are proportionate to the aim sought to
be achieved.
There has accordingly been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
182. The applicant complained that it has had no effective domestic
remedy through which to challenge the violation of its rights under Article 8
of the Convention. The applicant relied on Article 13 of the Convention,
which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated
shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the
violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
183. The Government contested that argument.
184. Having regard to the findings under Article 8 (see, in particular,
paragraph 178 above), the Court considers that, although the present
complaint is closely linked to the complaint under Article 8 and therefore
has to be declared admissible, it raises no separate issue under Article 13 of
the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Joins to the merits the Government’s objection regarding the applicant’s
lack of victim status and declares the application admissible;
2. Dismisses the Government’s above-mentioned objection;
3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;