Published on 15 June 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 7524/25
REPORTERS SANS FRONTIÈRES against Germany
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 29 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern a regime of monitoring and surveillance of foreign communications by the Federal Intelligence Service. The regime comprises of four elements, namely the strategic monitoring and bulk interception of foreign communications (strategische Ausland‑Fernmeldeaufklärung), the retention of intercepted communications data, the monitoring of foreign communications on behalf of foreign intelligence services and the transmission of intercepted material to them, and Computer Network Exploitation (Online-Durchsuchung). The surveillance regime is regulated by the Act on the Federal Intelligence Service (Gesetz über den Bundesnachrichtendienst).
The applicants’ constitutional complaint against the legal foundation of the surveillance regime was not admitted by the Federal Constitutional Court for adjudication by decisions of 19 September 2023 (1 BvR 2390/22) and 5 November 2024 (1 BvR 1820/23).
The first applicant is a French association defending freedom of the press. The remaining applicants are foreign journalists living outside of Germany.
The applicants complain under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention that the surveillance regime was neither based on a sufficient legal basis nor necessary in a democratic society. Regarding Article 10 of the Convention, they argued in particular that privileged communications, such as those between journalists and their sources, were not sufficiently protected. The applicants further claim that they did not have an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention to complain about a breach of their Convention right(s) by the impugned surveillance regime.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Do the alleged interferences based on the surveillance regime, which the applicants complain about in the present case, occur within the jurisdiction of Germany?
2. Can the applicants claim to be victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 (compare, inter alia, Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 171, ECHR 2015; Centrum för rättvisa v. Sweden [GC], no. 35252/08, § 167, 25 May 2021; and Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 70078/12, § 262, 11 January 2022)?
3. Is Article 10 of the Convention applicable to the facts of which the first applicant complains? In particular, can the first applicant invoke the protection of freedom of the press based on its activities?
4. Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
5. Have the applicants complied with the time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
6. a) Does the strategic monitoring and bulk interception of foreign communications by the Federal Intelligence Service constitute a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life or correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (compare Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 58170/13 and 2 others, § 361, 25 May 2021 and Centrum för rättvisa, cited above, § 275)?
In particular, do the authorisation procedure, supervision procedures and modalities, notification procedure, and independent ex post facto review procedures provide sufficient safeguards?
What are the different stages of the process of the strategic monitoring and bulk interception of foreign communications and how is the data intercepted or acquired?
b) Does the retention of intercepted “traffic data” by the Federal Intelligence Service constitute a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life or correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (compare Big Brother Watch and Others, cited above, §§ 363‑4)?
Which categories of data are considered “traffic data” (Verkehrsdaten) under section 26 § 1 of the Federal Intelligence Service Act? Does the term “traffic data” refer to communications data stemming from person-to-person telecommunications, or does it include metadata stemming from other forms of communication, such as messenger applications, emails, and machine-to-machine communications?
c) Does the monitoring of foreign communications by the Federal Intelligence Service on behalf of foreign intelligence services and the subsequent transmission of intercepted material to those services constitute a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life or correspondence, as set out in Article 8 of the Convention?
d) Does Computer Network Exploitation by the Federal Intelligence Service, pursuant to section 34 of the Federal Intelligence Service Act, constitute a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life or correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention (compare Roman Zakharov, cited above, §§ 231-4; Big Brother Watch and Others, cited above, § 361; Centrum för rättvisa, cited above, § 275; and Ekimdzhiev and Others, cited above, §§ 291-3, 298 – 355)?
How is access to “IT-systems used by foreigners abroad” acquired and what kind of “technical means” are used? Is data stored on the IT-system corrupted, and what changes are made to the IT-systems?
What risks for the security of the IT-system are entailed in obtaining access without the knowledge of the person(s) concerned? Does Computer Network Exploitation weaken the IT-security of all users? Can the obtained access to the IT-system and a potentially compromised security of the IT‑system also be exploited by criminal networks?
7. Does the regime of monitoring and surveillance of foreign communications by the Federal Intelligence Service with its four distinct elements constitute a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention?
8. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Did the applicant have an “arguable claim” that there had been a violation of their rights under Article 13, read in conjunction with Articles 8 or 10 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
7524/25
Reporters sans frontières v. Germany
REPORTERS SANS FRONTIÈRES
Paris
French
Matthias BÄCKER
2.
8096/25
Akgül v. Germany
Elif AKGÜL
1986
Istanbul
Turkish
Matthias BÄCKER
3.
8102/25
Estefanos v. Germany
Meron ESTEFANOS
1974
Bagarmossen
Swedish
Matthias BÄCKER
4.
8117/25
Lefkov v. Germany
Goran LEFKOV
1980
Kocani
North Macedonian
Matthias BÄCKER
5.
8133/25
Peco v. Germany
Dragana PECO
1986
Perlez
Serbian
Matthias BÄCKER