Onder 2.4 Gerechtshof Den Haag 27 oktober 2015

“117. As regards supervision and review of monitoring measures, the Court notes that the G 10 Act provided for independent supervision by two bodies which had a comparatively significant role to play. Firstly, there was a Parliamentary Supervisory Board, which consisted of nine members of parliament, including members of the opposition. The Federal Minister authorising monitoring measures had to report to this board at least every six months. Secondly, the Act established the G 10 Commission, which had to authorise surveillance measures and had substantial power in relation to all stages of interception . The Court observes that in its judgment in the Klass and Others case (….) it found this system of supervision, which remained essentially the same under the amended G 10 Act at issue here, to be such as to keep the interference resulting from the contested legislation to what was “necessary in a democratic society”. It sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.” (onderstreping hof)

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