## Facts

- Five German legal professionals challenged a statutory framework authorizing secret surveillance of mail, post, and telecommunications for national security and serious-crime prevention.
- The challenged regime permitted interception only under specified substantive conditions (e.g., indications of certain serious offenses and investigative necessity), targeted at particular persons, for limited periods, with renewal procedures.
- The regime did not generally require later notification to persons subjected to surveillance and restricted ordinary judicial review of surveillance orders and their execution.
- The applicants alleged they were at risk of being surveilled due to their professional and public activities but could not prove they had been intercepted because the measures were secret.
- Germany’s constitutional court had previously reviewed the framework, required some amendments, and upheld its basic structure.
- The applicants alleged violations of the rights to respect for private life and correspondence, an effective remedy, and access to a court.

## Issues

1. Whether individuals lacking proof of actual interception can qualify as “victims” entitled to challenge a secret surveillance regime.
2. Whether the surveillance framework constituted an interference with private life and correspondence, and if so, whether it was justified as lawful and necessary for legitimate aims.
3. Whether the absence of notice and the limits on ordinary judicial actions were compatible with the requirement of an effective remedy.
4. Whether excluding ordinary judicial proceedings for surveillance measures violated the right of access to a court.

## Decision

- The court held the applicants had standing as “victims” because secrecy makes proof of interception impracticable and denying standing would render protection illusory.
- The court found an interference with private life and correspondence due to the existence and potential application of the surveillance powers.
- The court found no violation of the right to respect for private life and correspondence because the interference was in accordance with law, pursued legitimate aims (national security and prevention of disorder or crime), and was necessary given the safeguards.
- The court found no violation of the right to an effective remedy, accepting that specialized supervision and parliamentary oversight could satisfy remedy requirements in a secrecy-based context.
- The court found no violation of the right of access to a court, concluding the scheme did not require ordinary judicial proceedings in this setting.

## Legal Principles

- In secret surveillance contexts, applicants may be treated as “victims” without proving actual interception when secrecy would otherwise defeat enforceable rights.
- Secret surveillance is permissible only with strict necessity for protecting democratic institutions and with adequate and effective guarantees against abuse.
- Whether safeguards are sufficient is assessed contextually, including the nature, scope, and duration of measures; thresholds and grounds for authorization; the authorities empowered to authorize, execute, and supervise; and the available remedial mechanisms.
- States have discretion in designing surveillance systems, but that discretion is not unlimited; national security rationales cannot justify unchecked powers.
- An “effective remedy” may be satisfied through specialized independent oversight and parliamentary control where individual notice and ordinary litigation are impracticable due to secrecy.
- Article 6 judicial-process guarantees are not automatically triggered by surveillance authorization mechanisms that do not determine civil rights or a criminal charge.

## Conclusion

The court accepted that secrecy-based surveillance regimes may be challenged without proof of individual interception, but upheld Germany’s framework as compatible with the relevant Convention rights because its legal limits and independent oversight mechanisms were sufficient to control abuse while serving national security and serious-crime prevention aims.


Klass & Others v. Ger., App. No. 5029/71 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1978)