The European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday that Poland’s surveillance laws violate the right to privacy under the Human Rights Convention.
The complaint targeted the 2016 laws permitting authorities to monitor and retain telecommunications, postal, and digital data, including SMS and emails, under anti-terrorism legislation.
In a case brought by several Polish lawyers and activists, the court found that laws allowing secret surveillance and data retention by Polish intelligence agencies lack adequate safeguards against abuse.
The plaintiffs, considering their professional and public roles, believed they were likely subjected to surveillance. They argued that the laws enabled authorities to monitor their communications and gather data without their knowledge, with no requirement to inform them even after surveillance ended, violating their constitutional rights and preventing them from seeking judicial recourse.
ECHR’s judgment
The ECHR said: “There had been three violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the complaints concerning the operational-control regime, the retention of communications data for potential use by the relevant national authorities, and the secret-surveillance regime under the Anti-Terrorism Act.”
The court determined that the Polish laws established a surveillance system where any phone or internet user could have their data intercepted without being informed.
It added that the requirement for telecommunications providers to retain communication data posed a serious intrusion into privacy rights, and the lack of minimum safeguards against potential abuse rendered the surveillance practices incompatible with the convention.
Moreover, the court criticized the operational control system in Poland for not providing effective guarantees against arbitrariness and abuse.
Specifically, the laws did not require judicial authorities to confirm reasonable suspicion or examine evidence of criminal intent before authorizing surveillance. Furthermore, the laws did not offer a remedy for individuals subjected to secret surveillance if no criminal charges arose.
The ECHR also pointed out that the anti-terrorism law allowed the Internal Security Agency (ABW) to monitor nearly anyone in contact with surveilled individuals, with decisions made by the ABW head under the supervision of the Attorney General and the Minister of Special Services, without independent oversight. The court noted the potential for political influence, given the dual role of the Attorney General as the Minister of Justice at the time.
In a case brought by several Polish lawyers and activists, the court found that laws allowing secret surveillance and data retention by Polish intelligence agencies lack adequate safeguards against abuse.
The plaintiffs, considering their professional and public roles, believed they were likely subjected to surveillance. They argued that the laws enabled authorities to monitor their communications and gather data without their knowledge, with no requirement to inform them even after surveillance ended, violating their constitutional rights and preventing them from seeking judicial recourse.
ECHR’s judgment
The ECHR said: “There had been three violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the complaints concerning the operational-control regime, the retention of communications data for potential use by the relevant national authorities, and the secret-surveillance regime under the Anti-Terrorism Act.”
The court determined that the Polish laws established a surveillance system where any phone or internet user could have their data intercepted without being informed.
It added that the requirement for telecommunications providers to retain communication data posed a serious intrusion into privacy rights, and the lack of minimum safeguards against potential abuse rendered the surveillance practices incompatible with the convention.
Moreover, the court criticized the operational control system in Poland for not providing effective guarantees against arbitrariness and abuse.
Specifically, the laws did not require judicial authorities to confirm reasonable suspicion or examine evidence of criminal intent before authorizing surveillance. Furthermore, the laws did not offer a remedy for individuals subjected to secret surveillance if no criminal charges arose.
The ECHR also pointed out that the anti-terrorism law allowed the Internal Security Agency (ABW) to monitor nearly anyone in contact with surveilled individuals, with decisions made by the ABW head under the supervision of the Attorney General and the Minister of Special Services, without independent oversight. The court noted the potential for political influence, given the dual role of the Attorney General as the Minister of Justice at the time.
While the plaintiffs did not seek compensation, they considered the acknowledgment of the violations sufficient redress. The court ruled that Poland should cover the legal costs of the case.Judgment Pietrzak and Bychawska-Siniarska and Others v. Poland - complaints about Polish legislation on secret surveillancehttps://t.co/Rs5ddQyjH4#ECHR #CEDH #ECHRpress pic.twitter.com/9uZ7TilqIK
— ECHR CEDH (@ECHR_CEDH) May 28, 2024
Source: PAP, X
More In Society MORE...
