May 6, 2022 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and the Norwegian Section of the ICJ intervened in the case GreenPeace Nordic and Others v. Norway before the European Court of Human Rights.
Dec 3, 2021 | News
The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers decision notifying Turkey it will start infringement proceedings over its failure to comply with the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) order to free the jailed human rights defender Osman Kavala is a welcome step, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and the Turkey Litigation Support Project said today.
Sep 23, 2021 | News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Swiss Section of the ICJ have submitted a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in a case against Switzerland challenging its lack of sufficient action to prevent climate change and thereby protect human rights.
Jun 30, 2021 | News
The Polish government should immediately reinstate two judges removed from their posts in line with the newly released judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, said the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today.
May 26, 2021 | News
The ICJ welcomes the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of B.B.W. and others v. the United Kingdom, setting out important guarantees against mass surveillance online.
On 25 May, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights issued its final ruling in this case in which the ICJ intervened. The case deals with the human rights implications of the system of intelligence mass surveillance of the United Kingdom, which was unveiled by the revelations of Edward Snowden.
“The judgment sets out clear guarantees to be respected in order to carry out bulk interception of communications”, said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, “it is a first important step towards ensuring that protection of human rights is as effective online as it is offline. All Member States of the Council of Europe must now ensure that their surveillance systems respect these minimal guarantees.”
In its judgment, the Court recognised the difference between surveillance of individual communications and bulk interception of communications with the use of metadata and introduces a set of procedural guarantees to be respected at initial, intermediary and final stages of bulk data surveillance.
The Court found that these guarantees also apply when a State receives intelligence based on bulk interception carried out by foreign States.
The judgment, however, does not fully address the implications for human rights of States’ participation in close transnational surveillance cooperation such as the system of the “Five Eyes” including the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
“These transnational surveillance systems entail a higher level of responsibility by States under international human rights law in light of the high risk of bypassing national remedies”, said Massimo Frigo, “We hope the Court will be able to address these important issues in the future to strengthen the protection of human rights online in Europe.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41797499949, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org