Skip to content

The search returned 26 results.

Big Brother Watch and others v. the United Kingdom & Centrum för Rättvisa v. Sweden: Does the Grand Chamber Set Back the Clock in Mass Surveillance Cases? journal article

Bart van der Sloot

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 7 (2021), Issue 2, Page 319 - 326

This case note concerns two Grand Chamber judgements that were issued on the same day and both address the matter of mass surveillance, namely that of Centrum för Rättvisa v. Sweden and Big Brother Watch et al. v. The United Kingdom. Both initial judgements by the European Court of Human Rights (the Chamber judgements) have already been annotated in this journal (EDPL 4/2018 and EDPL 2/2019) and a number of academic articles have appeared providing an analysis of the case law of the Court on mass surveillance. That is why this case note will not describe the facts of the cases in detail (read the earlier case notes) or touch upon the points already analysed by scholars (read the articles), but will be limited to providing the reader with a non-exhaustive list of points of interest. Yet, this case note will not be short, because the judgements by the Grand Chamber are substantial (more than 100 pages in the Swedish case, more than 200 pages in the British case).

Big Brother Watch and Others v UK: Lessons from the Latest Strasbourg Ruling on Bulk Surveillance journal article

Bart van der Sloot, Eleni Kosta

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 5 (2019), Issue 2, Page 252 - 261

Big Brother Watch and Others v the United Kingdom, Application numbers 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 13 September 2018 A United Kingdom mass surveillance law, allowing for bulk interception by intelligence agencies and data sharing with foreign counterparts, violated both Article 8 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that, inter alia, the lack of oversight of the entire selection process and the absence of any real safeguards applicable to the selection of related communications data for the examination constitute a violation of the right to privacy. Although the ECtHR did not find a violation of Article 8 in relation to intelligence data sharing, it is important that it acknowledged for the first time its importance and stressed that the minimum requirements it has developed for gathering data also apply to sharing the data. Article 8 ECHR; Sections 8 and 16 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)