In Big Brother Watch and Others v the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights examined the former British bulk-interception regime. In 2021, its Grand Chamber found violations concerning interception, communications-data acquisition and protection of journalistic material. The findings concern the legal framework under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The judgment did not say all bulk interception is inherently incompatible with the Convention. It examined authorisation and the safeguards needed as collected material is selected and examined. The independence of the authorising body and controls on selectors linked to individuals were material issues.
That nuance strengthens the file. A real capability, a deficient legal arrangement and a later replacement framework must not be merged into one timeless claim. The present oversight of investigatory powers has a separate record; use the connected current file to examine that question.
The established record.
- 01
The Grand Chamber delivered its judgment on 25 May 2021.
- 02
It found violations under Articles 8 and 10 in parts of the former regime.
- 03
The judgment addresses RIPA-era arrangements, since replaced by a different framework.
How the story unfolded.
- RIPA 2000 framework
The arrangements under examination
Bulk interception and data acquisition operate under the earlier law.
- 2013 onwards
The complaints develop
Journalists and rights organisations challenge the regimes.
- 25 May 2021
Grand Chamber findings
The court identifies significant safeguard failures.
Where the evidence stops.
The court did not rule that every bulk-interception system is unlawful, or find violations in every intelligence-sharing arrangement examined. The finding should not be presented as a judgment on all current powers.
Read the original sources.
The source may establish a narrower point than the headline. Follow the specific finding, its date and its limitations.
What safeguards are needed between collecting communications and identifying a person?