BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
(i) The Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) .......................155
(ii) Access Now.......................................................................................155
(iii) Bureau Brandeis ...............................................................................155
(iv) Center for Democracy and Technology (“CDT”) and Pen
American Center (“PEN America”) ..................................................156
(v) The International Commission of Jurists (“ICJ”)..............................156
(vi) Open Society Justice Initiative (“OSJI”)..........................................156
(vii) The Law Society of England and Wales .........................................156
(viii) Human Rights Watch (“HRW”) ....................................................157
(c) The Court’s assessment ............................................................................157
(i) The scope of the applicants’ complaints ............................................157
(ii) The nature of the interference ...........................................................158
(iii) The applicable test ...........................................................................158
(iv) Application of the test to material falling into the second
category .............................................................................................160
(v) Application of the test to material falling into the third category .....165
C. The Chapter II regime ................................................................................166
1. Admissibility.....................................................................................................166
2. Merits................................................................................................................167
(a) The parties’ submissions ..........................................................................167
(i) The applicants ....................................................................................167
(ii) The Government................................................................................168
(b) The Court’s assessment............................................................................168
(i) Existing case-law on the acquisition of communications data...........168
(ii) The approach to be taken in the present case ....................................169
(iii) Examination of the Chapter II regime..............................................170
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE
CONVENTION..............................................................................................170
A. Admissibility..............................................................................................171
1. The applicants in the third of the joined cases..................................................171
2. The applicants in the second of the joined cases ..............................................172
B. Merits .........................................................................................................172
1. The parties’ submissions...................................................................................172
(a) The applicants...........................................................................................172
(b) The Government.......................................................................................173
2. The submissions of the third parties .................................................................174
(a) The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights ............................................174
(b) The National Union of Journalists (“NUJ”) and the International
Federation of Journalists (“IFJ”)..............................................................174
(c) The Media Lawyers’ Association (“MLA”).............................................175