CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 mars 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE3DA80B3 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 65463/16 James BALL against the United Kingdom (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10   March 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 November 2016, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr M. Scott of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, a lawyer practising in London. The applicant’s complaints under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention concerning the bulk interception regime provided for by section 8(4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 were communicated to the United Kingdom Government (“the Government”). The Court received the friendly-settlement declarations, signed by the parties, under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the United Kingdom in respect of the facts giving rise to this application, subject to an acknowledgement by the Government that, based on the leading case of Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos.   58170/13 and 2 others, 25 May 2021), the section 8(4) regime was not compliant with Article 8 of the Convention, or, in relation to the treatment of confidential journalistic material, Article 10 of the Convention, for the reasons identified by the Grand Chamber; and an undertaking by the Government to pay him the amount detailed in the appended table. This amount will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above ‑ mentioned three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. THE LAW The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 31 March 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Armen Harutyunyan   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of Applicant’s declaration Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros, to be converted into pounds sterling) [1] 65463/16 04/11/2016 James BALL 1986 Mark Scott, Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, London 01/12/2021 24/12/2021 1,000   [1] Inclusive of any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.