BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
151
itself, and the Court should not entertain an abstract challenge when the
applicants had available to them an effective remedy in the form of the IPT.
391. The applicants, on the other hand, submitted that on account of
their global public interest activities and the very broad range of persons and
organisations with which they were in contact, they were at genuine risk of
having their communications obtained by a foreign intelligence service and
requested by the United Kingdom authorities. They further submitted that
there was no adequate remedy available under domestic law for the alleged
breach of their Convention rights.
(b) The Court’s assessment
392. The Court has accepted that an applicant could claim to be the
victim of a violation occasioned by the mere existence of secret surveillance
measures, or legislation permitting secret surveillance measures, if the
following conditions were satisfied: first, the Court would examine whether
the applicant could possibly be affected by the legislation permitting secret
surveillance measures; and secondly, it would take into account the
availability of remedies at the national level and adjust the degree of
scrutiny depending on the effectiveness of such remedies. Where the
domestic system did not afford an effective remedy, there would be a
greater need for scrutiny by the Court and the individual would not need to
demonstrate the existence of any risk that secret surveillance measures were
applied to him. By contrast, if the national system provides for effective
remedies, the individual may claim to be a victim of a violation occasioned
by the mere existence of secret measures or of legislation permitting secret
measures only if he is able to show that, due to his personal situation, he is
potentially at risk of being subjected to such measures (Roman Zakharov,
cited above, § 171).
393. In the present case the Court has accepted that the IPT offers an
effective remedy to anyone who wishes to complain about an interference
with his or her communications by the United Kingdom authorities (see
paragraphs 250-266 above).It has jurisdiction to investigate any complaint
that a person’s communications have been intercepted and, where
interception has occurred, to examine the authority for such interception
(see paragraph 124 above). This jurisdiction clearly extends to complaints
about the receipt of intelligence from foreign intelligence services. Indeed,
in the Liberty proceedings the IPT considered the applicants’ complaints
about both the section 8(4) regime and the intelligence sharing regime with
equal diligence (see paragraphs 32-40 above). Consequently, the applicants
can only claim to be “victims” on account of the mere existence of the
intelligence sharing regime if they are able to show that, due to their
personal situation, they were potentially at risk of having their
communications obtained by the United Kingdom authorities through a