Judicial Warrants Are Required for Government Surveillance

The Strasbourg court's decision in a case from Hungary declares once and for all that uncontrolled government surveillance is incompatible with European human rights standards.

  • Two lawyers won their case against the Hungarian state concerning legislation on secret surveillance.
  • The Hungarian government must now obtain judicial warrants for surveillance activities.
  • The decision by the European Court of Human Rights may be of interest to the whole of Europe.

The complaint submitted by HCLU's director of programs and one of its lawyers concerned whether it is sufficient to obtain the permission of a member of the government - a minister - for the authorization of secret surveillance with national security purposes, or if it is necessary to have an independent - preferably judicial - control over surveillance activities.

Control mechanism

As potential subjects of surveillance, the applicants claimed that their rights to privacy are violated if the interception is not accompanied by a control mechanism that is independent from the government and surveillance-gathering parties.This is especially true because, given the secret nature of this type of surveillance, concerned persons are usually unaware of the fact that they are being watched, and are therefore unable to enforce their rights protecting them from such activities.The same legislation was found constitutional by the Hungarian Constitutional Court in 2013, but now the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that it is incompatible with the Convention on Human Rights.Instead of mass, indiscriminate data gathering, the court's decision means that Hungarian authorities must obtain a judicial warrant to collect data on a case-by-case basis.

A ruling for the rest of Europe

The judgment has all the more weight since the decision was clearly not influenced by the terror threat in Europe, reinforcing the concept that judicial rulings should set the standards for government behavior, with only limited exceptions being allowed in extraordinary circumstances.

The Strasbourg ruling, as a consequence of which the Hungarian Parliament must reform its act on surveillance for national security purposes, may affect relevant practices in all European countries.

Image: http://compfight.com/

Share

Related articles

Pegasus case: HCLU takes coordinated domestic and foreign legal action

The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU) is taking legal action on behalf of six of its clients before the Hungarian authorities, the European Commission, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and in Israel. The organisation aims to expose the practice of unlawful secret surveillance, to have international fora declare that the Hungarian regulation of secret information gathering violates fundamental rights and to prevent politically motivated abuses.

Read more »

NGOs Reject "Safe Harbor 2.0," Urge EU and US to Protect Fundamental Rights

Leading human rights and consumer organizations have issued a letter to urge the US and the EU to protect the fundamental right to privacy.

Read more »

Call for urgent amicus briefs!

In April 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) declared invalid the Data Retention Directive that unified the rules of the retention of selective data by Internet and telephone services and determined the accessibility of data by authorities in the member states. Despite the content of the judgment, the Hungarian act allowing data retention is still in force. In October, 2014 the HCLU started litigation against two major service providers in order to force the Hungarian Constitutional Court (CC) to repeal the unlawful act.

Read more »