BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
171
afforded by Article 10 was of critical importance to them as NGOs involved
in matters of public interest, who were exercising a role of public watchdog
of similar importance to that of the press; and the applicants in the second of
the joined cases, being a journalist and newsgathering organisation,
complained under Article 10 of the Convention about both the section 8(4)
regime and the Chapter II regime.
470. Article 10 of the Convention provides as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include
freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without
interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not
prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities,
may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of
national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or
crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or
rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence,
or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
A. Admissibility
1. The applicants in the third of the joined cases
471. The Court has already found that as a general rule the IPT has
shown itself to be a remedy, available in theory and practice, which is
capable of offering redress to applicants complaining about both specific
incidences of surveillance and the general Convention compliance of a
surveillance regime (see paragraphs 250-266 above). The Court has,
however, accepted that there existed special circumstances absolving the
applicants in the first and second of the joined cases from the requirement
that they exhaust this remedy (see paragraph 268 above), but as the
applicants in the third of the joined cases challenged the Convention
compliance of both the section 8(4) regime and the intelligence sharing
regime before the IPT, they cannot benefit from the “absolution” afforded to
the other applicants. Therefore, as they did not complain before the IPT that
the intelligence sharing regime was incompatible with Article 10 of the
Convention, this complaint must be declared inadmissible for failure to
domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
472. Furthermore, although these applicants did complain before the IPT
that the section 8(4) regime was not compatible with Article 10, in doing so
they primarily relied on the same arguments invoked in respect of their
Article 8 complaint. Insofar as they sought to argue that Article 10 could
apply to their investigatory activities as NGOs, this argument was only
raised on 17 November 2014 (the first and second open hearings having
taken place in July and October 2014). As the IPT considered that this