CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 20 September 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 64230/16 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH against the United Kingdom and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 1 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are a human rights NGO; a journalist; a lawyer; a technologist; and an entrepreneur. The NGO is headquartered in New York with major offices in the United Kingdom, and the individual applicants are all resident in the United Kingdom. The applicants complain under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention about the operation of the regime under section 8(4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“the bulk interception regime”). In a judgment dated 16 May 2016 the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (“IPT”) found that they had standing to complain about the bulk interception regime and directed inquiries into whether their communications had been unlawfully intercepted, stored, accessed or retained. However, the IPT subsequently made no determination in their favour. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Is the regime under section 8(4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 compatible with Article 8 and/or Article 10 of the Convention?     APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 64230/16 Human Rights Watch v. the United Kingdom 04/11/2016 Human Rights Watch New York   Mark SCOTT (Bhatt Murphy Solicitors) 2. 64368/16 Shuttleworth v. the United Kingdom 04/11/2016 Mark Richard SHUTTLEWORTH 1973 Isle of Man British Mark SCOTT (Bhatt Murphy Solicitors) 3. 64741/16 Weatherhead v. the United Kingdom 04/11/2016 Christopher WEATHERHEAD 1990 Canterbury British Mark SCOTT (Bhatt Murphy Solicitors) 4. 65463/16 Ball v. the United Kingdom 04/11/2016 James BALL 1986 London British Mark SCOTT (Bhatt Murphy Solicitors) 5. 65487/16 Robinson v.   the United Kingdom 04/11/2016 Jennifer Kate ROBINSON 1981 London Australian Mark SCOTT (Bhatt Murphy Solicitors)