PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS REGARDING THE BULK MASS SURVEILLANCE: AN ASSESSMENT OF TWO ECHR JUDGMENTS

Deniz Kızılsümer Özer

Makale detayları

PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS REGARDING THE BULK MASS SURVEILLANCE: AN ASSESSMENT OF TWO ECHR JUDGMENTS

Yazarlar:

Deniz Kızılsümer Özer

Yayıncı:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar:

Uluslararası İnsani ve İnsan Hakları Hukuku

Dergi:

İnsan Hakları Yıllığı Vol.42 Issue 2, pp.1-44

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001338764

pISSN:

1016-7617

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 ABSTRACT On 25 May 2021, ECHR Grand Chamber ruled in the In Centrum för Rattvisa v. Sweden and Big Brother Watch and Others v. UK that the UK and Swedish governments violated the EConHR Article 8 as their national legislations on bulk mass surveillance BMS did not contain adequate procedural safeguards for the protection of privacy. The Courts approach in these judgments are peculiar and should be examined from various aspects. First, the Court decided the case in abstractio and decide that the case is admissable before the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court has easen the victim status by eliminating the requirement of the individual harm but reling on potential victim as it is almost impossible to prove oneself to be a victim of BMS. Second, the Court assessed if the relevant legislation on BMS satisfies the quality of law requirement. Although in its previous cases the Court decided on the procedural safeguards in targetted survelliance regimes, this time decided on the requirements of minimum procedural safeguards in their laws on BMS in order to mitigate the risks of violation of privacy. The ECHR ruled that operating a bulk interception regime did not per se violate the Convention, however, the Respondent States legislation on BMS must provide end-to-end safeguards for the protection of privacy. In summary, if the law regulating bulk surveillance comes before the Court, the legality of the mas interception will be assessed by evaluating the requirements of in accordance with law and necessity together. The quality of law requires not only the relevant laws to be accessible and foreseeable, but also the application of bulk surveillance measures and can be permitted only when they are necessary in a democratic society, and provided adequate and effective safeguards and guarantees against violation of privacy.

 ABSTRACT On 25 May 2021, ECHR Grand Chamber ruled in the In Centrum för Rattvisa v. Sweden and Big Brother Watch and Others v. UK that the UK and Swedish governments violated the EConHR Article 8 as their national legislations on bulk mass surveillance BMS did not contain adequate procedural safeguards for the protection of privacy. The Courts approach in these judgments are peculiar and should be examined from various aspects. First, the Court decided the case in abstractio and decide that the case is admissable before the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court has easen the victim status by eliminating the requirement of the individual harm but reling on potential victim as it is almost impossible to prove oneself to be a victim of BMS. Second, the Court assessed if the relevant legislation on BMS satisfies the quality of law requirement. Although in its previous cases the Court decided on the procedural safeguards in targetted survelliance regimes, this time decided on the requirements of minimum procedural safeguards in their laws on BMS in order to mitigate the risks of violation of privacy. The ECHR ruled that operating a bulk interception regime did not per se violate the Convention, however, the Respondent States legislation on BMS must provide end-to-end safeguards for the protection of privacy. In summary, if the law regulating bulk surveillance comes before the Court, the legality of the mas interception will be assessed by evaluating the requirements of in accordance with law and necessity together. The quality of law requires not only the relevant laws to be accessible and foreseeable, but also the application of bulk surveillance measures and can be permitted only when they are necessary in a democratic society, and provided adequate and effective safeguards and guarantees against violation of privacy.

 ABSTRACT On 25 May 2021, ECHR Grand Chamber ruled in the In Centrum för Rattvisa v. Sweden and Big Brother Watch and Others v. UK that the UK and Swedish governments violated the EConHR Article 8 as their national legislations on bulk mass surveillance BMS did not contain adequate procedural safeguards for the protection of privacy. The Courts approach in these judgments are peculiar and should be examined from various aspects. First, the Court decided the case in abstractio and decide that the case is admissable before the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court has easen the victim status by eliminating the requirement of the individual harm but reling on potential victim as it is almost impossible to prove oneself to be a victim of BMS. Second, the Court assessed if the relevant legislation on BMS satisfies the quality of law requirement. Although in its previous cases the Court decided on the procedural safeguards in targetted survelliance regimes, this time decided on the requirements of minimum procedural safeguards in their laws on BMS in order to mitigate the risks of violation of privacy. The ECHR ruled that operating a bulk interception regime did not per se violate the Convention, however, the Respondent States legislation on BMS must provide end-to-end safeguards for the protection of privacy. In summary, if the law regulating bulk surveillance comes before the Court, the legality of the mas interception will be assessed by evaluating the requirements of in accordance with law and necessity together. The quality of law requires not only the relevant laws to be accessible and foreseeable, but also the application of bulk surveillance measures and can be permitted only when they are necessary in a democratic society, and provided adequate and effective safeguards and guarantees against violation of privacy.

 25 Mayıs 2021 tarihinde, AİHM Büyük Dairesi, In Centrum för Rattvisa v. İsveç ve Big Brother Watch ve Diğerleri v. İngiltere davasında, Birleşik Krallık ve İsveç hükümetlerinin, kitle iletişiminin gözetimi KİG hakkındaki ulusal mevzuatlarının gizliliğin korunması için yeterli usul güvenceleri içermemesi nedeniyle AİHS Madde 8i ihlal ettiğine hükmetti. Mahkemenin bu kararlardaki yaklaşımı özellikler gösterdiği için çeşitli yönlerden incelenmelidir. Öncelikle, Mahkeme, KİGnin özelliğini göz önünde bulundurarak, mağduriyeti kanıtlamanın neredeyse imkansız olması nedeniyle mağduriyet gerekliliğini ortadan kaldırarak, davalının iç başvuru yollarını tüketmesini aramadan davayı soyut olarak karara bağladı. İkinci olarak, Mahkeme, KİG ile ilgili mevzuatın kanunun kalitesi koşulunu karşılayıp karşılamadığını değerlendirdi. Mahkeme, hedefli gözetim konusundaki önceki davalarında bazı usulî güvenceleri belirlemiş olsa da, bu kararlarında özel hayatın gizliliğinin korunması için KİG ile ilgili mevzuatın içermesi gereken minimum güvenceleri belirledi. Mahkeme, toplu gözetim rejiminin per se Sözleşmeyi ihlal etmediğine karar verdi; ancak Mahkemeye göre KİG ile ilgili mevzuat özel hayatın korunmasını sağlamak üzere baştan sona güvenceler sağlamalıdır. Özetle, gizli gözetimi düzenleyen kanunların Mahkemenin önüne gelmesi halinde yapılan denetim sırasında müdahalenin hukuka uygunluğu kanuna uygunluk ve gereklilik koşullarının birlikte değerlendirilmesi suretiyle yapılmaktadır. Burada, kanunun kalitesi koşulu, ilgili kanunların hem erişilebilir ve öngörülebilir olmasını hem de gizli gözetim önlemlerinin yalnızca demokratik bir toplumda gerekli olduğunda uygulanmasını, özellikle kanunlarda özel hayatın korumasını sağlamak üzere yeterli ve etkili güvencelerin ve garantilerin bulunmasını ifade eder. Son olarak, Mahkemenin bu davalarda benimsediği kanunun kalitesi ve usuli güvenceler yaklaşımının gelecekte önüne gelecek benzeri türdeki toplu gözetim ve yapay zeka ile ilgili davalar için ne ölçüde geçerli olacağını zaman gösterecektir.

Makale detayları

PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS REGARDING THE BULK MASS SURVEILLANCE: AN ASSESSMENT OF TWO ECHR JUDGMENTS

Yazarlar:

Deniz Kızılsümer Özer

Yayıncı:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar:

Uluslararası İnsani ve İnsan Hakları Hukuku

Dergi:

İnsan Hakları Yıllığı Vol.42 Issue 2, pp.1-44

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001338764

pISSN:

1016-7617

Bulk Mass Surveillance,

Law of (Mass) Surveillance

Art. 8 ECHR,

Protection of privacy,

procedural safeduards,özel hayatın korunması hakkı

usuli güvenceler

Kitle iletişim gözetimi

Gözetim hukuku

AİHS 8. Madde

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Deniz Kızılsümer Özer

Yayıncı: Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar: Uluslararası İnsani ve İnsan Hakları Hukuku

Dergi: İnsan Hakları Yıllığı Vol.42 Issue 2, pp.1-44

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 8/2025

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001338764

pISSN: 1016-7617

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Deniz Kızılsümer Özer

Yayıncı:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar:

Uluslararası İnsani ve İnsan Hakları Hukuku

Dergi:

İnsan Hakları Yıllığı Vol.42 Issue 2, pp.1-44

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001338764

pISSN:

1016-7617