Onder 2.4 Gerechtshof Den Haag 27 oktober 2015

“167. The Court recalls that it has previously indicated that in a field where abuse is potentially so easy in individual cases and could have such harmful consequences for democratic society as a whole, it is in principle desirable to entrust supervisory control to a judge (….). In the present case, the Court highlights the extensive jurisdiction of the IPT to examine any complaint of unlawful interception. Unlike in many other domestic systems (….), any person who suspects that his communications have been or are being intercepted may apply to the IPT (….). The jurisdiction of the IPT does not, therefore, depend on notification to the interception subject that there has been an interception of his communications. The Court emphasises that the IPT is an independent and impartial body, which has adopted its own rules of procedure. The members of the tribunal must hold or have held high judicial office or be experienced lawyers (see paragraph 75 above). In undertaking its examination of complaints by individuals, the IPT has access to closed material and has the power to require the Commissioner to provide it with any assistance it thinks fit and the power to order disclosure by those involved in the authorisation and execution of a warrant of all documents it considers relevant (….). In the event that the IPT finds in the applicant's favour, it can, inter alia , quash any interception order, require destruction of intercept material and order compensation to be paid (….). The publication of the IPT's legal rulings further enhances the level of scrutiny afforded to secret surveillance activities in the United Kingdom (….).”

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/24ccd7ef023e9cb78ed1f4edcdc146b0f7a5adfa8e3ec85131d0d1f8c7843c61 | shasum -a 256