CENTRUM FÖR RÄTTVISA v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
375. The applicant complained that the remedies available under the
Swedish bulk interception regime were insufficient and did not meet the
requirements of Article 13 of the Convention. That provision 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.”
376. The Chamber found that no separate issue arose under that
provision (see paragraph 184 of the Chamber judgment).
377. The Grand Chamber adopts the same conclusion, having regard to
its finding above that there has been a violation of Article 8.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
378. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols
thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to
the injured party.”
A. Damage
379. The applicant stated that a finding of a violation would constitute
sufficient redress. The Government agreed.
380. The Court accordingly makes no award under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
381. The applicant claimed 544,734 Swedish crowns (“SEK”) for 217
hours of legal work in the Chamber proceedings and 190 hours of legal
work in the Grand Chamber proceedings (407 hours in total) at hourly rates
ranging from SEK 1,302 to SEK 1,380.
382. The applicant also claimed travel and accommodation expenses for
the attendance of its three representatives at the hearing before the Grand
Chamber on 10 July 2019. These expenses amounted to SEK 8,669 for
flight tickets and SEK 8,231 for hotel accommodation (SEK 16,900 in
total). The applicant submitted copies of the relevant invoices.
383. The total amount claimed by the applicant was thus SEK 561,634
(the equivalent of approximately EUR 52,625).
384. The Government stated that they did not object to the claims made
by the applicant but considered that if only one of the Convention Articles