172
BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
argument could have been raised at any time, in its judgment it had been
raised far too late to be incorporated into the ambit of the Liberty
proceedings (see paragraph 47 above).
473. Therefore, with regard to the Article 8(4) complaint, the Court finds
that insofar as the applicants in the third of the joined cases seek to rely on
the special protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention to
journalists, they have not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning
of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Their complaints under this head must
also be declared inadmissible.
474. Finally, the Court considers that the more general Article 10
complaint – which the applicants raised before the IPT in good time – gives
rise to no separate argument over and above that arising out of Article 8 of
the Convention. It is not, therefore, necessary to examine this complaint.
2. The applicants in the second of the joined cases
475. As the Court has acknowledged that the applicants in the second of
the joined cases were, exceptionally, absolved from the requirement that
they first bring their complaints to the IPT, they cannot be said to have
failed to exhaust domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of
the Convention. As their complaints are not inadmissible on any other
ground, they must, therefore, be declared admissible.
476. Moreover, the applicants in the second of the joined cases are a
journalist and a newsgathering organisation, who complain about the
interference with confidential journalistic material occasioned by the
operation of both the section 8(4) regime and the Chapter II regime. As
such, their complaints raise separate issues to those raised under Article 8 of
the Convention, which will be examined below.
B. Merits
1. The parties’ submissions
(a) The applicants
477. The applicants argued that as freedom of the press constituted one
of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and the protection of
journalistic sources was one of the cornerstones of freedom of the press,
Article 10 of the Convention imposed additional and more exacting
requirements where an interference gave rise to a significant risk of
revealing journalistic sources or confidential journalistic material. In this
regard, they submitted that surveillance measures which ran a significant
risk of identifying journalistic source material had to be justified by an
“overriding public interest” (Sanoma Uitgevers B.V., cited above, §§ 51
and 90, 14 September 2010 and Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March