CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 43246/16 Jenny JONES and Caroline LUCAS against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5   May   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 19   July 2016, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants, Ms Jenny Jones and Ms Caroline Lucas, who were born in 1949 and 1960, respectively, were represented by Mr W. Sheikh , a lawyer practising in London with Leigh Day Solicitors. The applicants’ complaints under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention concerning the United Kingdom’s bulk interception regime under section 8(4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 were communicated to the United Kingdom Government (“the Government”). On 28 February 2022 the Court received a friendly-settlement declaration signed by the Government. A copy of the declaration signed by the applicants was received by the Court on 28 March 2022. The terms of the declaration are as follows: “UPON the Applicants bringing an application challenging the regime for intercepting, accessing, storing, and transmitting Parliamentary communications on the grounds that: (a) the regime did not reflect the minimum safeguards set out in the Court’s well-established case law, and (b) the regime did not require judicial oversight prior to decisions about the surveillance of Parliamentarians. AND UPON the Grand Chamber giving judgment in Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom (App. Nos. 58170/13, 62322/14, and 24969/15) on 25 May 2021 (“the BBW Judgment”). AND UPON the parties having agreed terms of friendly settlement in accordance with Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights. IT IS AGREED BY WAY OF FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT THAT: 1)     The regime under section 8(4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”) for intercepting communications was not in accordance with the law as required by Article 8(2) or prescribed by law as required by Article 10(2) for the reasons set out in relation to section 8(4) of RIPA in the BBW Judgment. 2)     The judgment of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to the contrary effect, dated 14   October 2015, was wrong. 3)     The Respondent shall pay the Applicants’ costs of the application, in the sum of EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) to include any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. This sum will be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the cases out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Respondent undertakes to pay simple interest on them, from 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 cases.” 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 25 May 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Armen Harutyunyan   Acting Deputy Registrar   President