## Facts

- Máté Szabó and Beatrix Vissy, Hungarian nationals working for a government-critical civil-society organization, challenged Hungary’s 2011 anti-terror surveillance amendments.
- The amendments empowered the Anti-Terrorism Task Force (TEK) to use secret measures without the target’s consent, including covert house searches with recording, opening letters and parcels, and intercepting electronic/computerized communications.
- Authorizations were issued within the executive branch (by a minister), not by an independent judge.
- The legal framework required identifying a “range of persons” but did not require a concrete, individualized link between the targeted person and a specific terrorist threat.
- After the Hungarian Constitutional Court rejected their challenge, the applicants filed before the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that the existence of this regime interfered with their privacy rights and lacked effective oversight and remedies.

## Issues

1. Whether the existence and scope of the secret-surveillance regime constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life, home, and correspondence under Article 8, even absent proof they were actually surveilled.
2. Whether the regime’s authorization process, scope, and lack of effective oversight or redress satisfied Article 8’s “in accordance with the law” and necessity requirements.

## Decision

- The court held the applicants had victim status because the framework permitted secret interception affecting any person in Hungary and provided no practical avenue to challenge suspected interception before an independent body.
- The court found a violation of Article 8.
- The court concluded the regime lacked safeguards that were sufficiently precise, effective, and comprehensive regarding the ordering, execution, and potential redress of surveillance measures.
- The court awarded €4,000 in costs and expenses and granted no non-pecuniary damages, finding the violation declaration sufficient.

## Legal Principles

- Secret surveillance regimes may constitute an Article 8 interference based on the existence of broadly applicable laws permitting covert measures, particularly where individuals cannot effectively learn of or challenge surveillance.
- “In accordance with the law” under Article 8 requires accessible and foreseeable rules plus safeguards against abuse, including clear limits on scope and targeting.
- Prior, independent authorization—preferably judicial—and an assessment of strict necessity are key safeguards where surveillance powers permit deep intrusions into private life and correspondence.
- Effective ex post oversight and remedial mechanisms are required; the absence of accessible, independent redress weighs strongly toward finding an Article 8 violation.
- Overbroad targeting criteria and executive-controlled authorization, combined with modern interception capabilities enabling large-scale data capture, increase the risk of abuse incompatible with Article 8.

## Conclusion

The court held that Hungary’s TEK secret-surveillance authorization scheme violated Article 8 because it allowed measures capable of affecting virtually anyone, was authorized within the executive without prior independent review or strict-necessity assessment, and lacked effective oversight and remedies for those potentially subjected to surveillance.


Szabó & Vissy v. Hung., App. No. 37138/14 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2016)