Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Art 8 • Private life • Practically unfettered power exercised by intelligence service implementing surveillance operation, without adequate legal safeguards • Lack of clarity of the applicable jurisdictional rules, lack of procedures for the implementation of the existing rules and flaws in their application • Storage of primary and derivative material subject to confidential internal rules without external control • Lack of lawful basis for retention of primary material
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 � 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
��������� Ksenija Turković, President, ��������� P�ter Paczolay [present via video link], ��������� Krzysztof Wojtyczek, ��������� Gilberto Felici, ��������� Lorraine Schembri Orland, ��������� Ioannis Ktistakis, judges, ��������� Ladislav Dudit�, ad hoc judge [present via video link] , and Renata Degener, Section Registrar,
three applications (nos. 58361/12 , 25592/16 and 27176/16 ) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (�the Convention�) by a Slovak national, Mr Zolt �n Varga (�the applicant�), on 6 September 2012 and 4 and 9 May 2016, respectively;
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.