118
BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
A. The section 8(4) regime
270. The applicants in all of the joined cases complain that the regime
under section 8(4) of RIPA for the bulk interception of communications is
incompatible with their right to respect for their rights under 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.”
271. The Government contested that argument. They did not, however,
raise any objection under Article 1 of the Convention; nor did they suggest
that the interception of communications under the section 8(4) regime was
taking place outside the United Kingdom’s territorial jurisdiction. The Court
will therefore proceed on the assumption that the matters complained of fall
within the jurisdictional competence of the United Kingdom.
1. Admissibility
272. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes
that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be
declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) The parties’ submissions
(i) The applicants
273. The applicants accepted that the bulk interception regime had a
basis in domestic law. However, they argued that it lacked the quality of law
because it was so complex as to be inaccessible to the public and to the
Government, reliance was placed on arrangements which were substantially
“below the waterline” rather than on clear and binding legal guidelines, and
it lacked sufficient guarantees against abuse.
274. In particular, the applicants submitted that the section 8(4) regime
did not comply with the six requirements identified by this Court in Weber
and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006‑XI. Firstly, they
contended that the purposes for which interception could be permitted (such
as “the interests of national security” and “the economic well-being of the
United Kingdom) were too vague to provide a clear limit on the intelligence
services’ activities.