• Veljko Turanjanin


bulk surveillance, the right to privacy, national security, ECtHR’s jurisprudence


Abstract. An author deals with the bulk surveillance and its relationship with right to privacy. Intensive ICT development enables various modern techniques and methods of crime investigation but also results in some new types of criminal offences that could be committed using ICT. Expansion of the fundamental rights and their protection, especially in Europe, raised global awareness about right to privacy and the need to protect it. Having that in mind it seems that the main question that should be answered by legislator is: Where is the borderline between the right to privacy and the public interest to investigate or prevent crime and collect evidence. European Court of Human Rights deeply examined this issue and developed criteria earlier established in famous judgement in a case Weber and Saravia. States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in deciding what type of interception regime was necessary to protect national security, but considered that the discretion afforded to states in operating an interception regime would necessarily be narrower. The ECtHR had identified six “minimum safeguards” which should be set out in law to avoid abuses of power: the nature of offences which may give rise to an interception order, a definition of the categories of people liable to have their communications intercepted, a limit on the duration of interception, the procedure to be followed for examining, using and storing the data obtained, the precautions to be taken when communicating the data to other parties, and the circumstances in which intercepted data may or must be erased or destroyed. The author in this work explains international legal instrument that authorize surveillance of communication as well as its boundaries.  


Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15 (ECtHR May 25, 2021).
Centrum för Rättvisa v. Sweden, Application no. 35252/08 (ECtHR May 25, 2021).
Flaherty, D. H. (1989). Protecting Privacy in Surveillance Societies: The Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, France, Canada, and the United States. University of North Carolina Press.
Franks, M. A. (2017). Democratic Surveillance. HARV. J. L. & TECH. 30, no. 2, 425-489.
Freiwald, S. (2008). Electronic Surveillance at the Virtual Border. Miss. L.J., 78, 333-368.
Heymann, P. B. (2016). An Essay on Domestic Surveillance. 8 J. NAT'l Sec. L. & POL'y, 421-435.
Huvig v. France, Application no. 11105/84 (ECtHR April 24, 1990).
Jacobs, B. (2009). Keeping Our Surveillance Society Non-Totalitarian. Amsterdam L.F., 1, 19-34.
Kiernan, C. J., & Mueller, M. L. (2021). Standardizing Security: Surveillance, Human Rights, and the Battle Over Tls 1.3. Journal of Information Policy, 11, 1-25.
Kruslin v. France, Application no. 11801/85 (ECtHR April 24, 1990).
Landau, S. (2016). Choices: Privacy & Surveillance in a Once & Future Internet. Daedalus, 145, 54-64.
Leavens, A. (2015). The Fourth Amendment and Surveillance in a Digital World. J. C.R. & ECON. DEV., 27, 709-746.
Nomikos, L. (2017). Are We Sleepwalking into a Surveillance Society. BLR, 2017, 111-122.
Norris, C., Hert, P. d., L'Hoiry, X., & Glletta, A. (2017). The Unaccoumtable State of Surveillance: Exercising Access Rights in Europe. Cham: Springer.
Ram, N., & Gray, D. (2020). Mass Surveillance in the Age of COVID-19. 7 J.L. & Biosciences.
Robis, L. A. (2014). When Does Public Interest Justify Government Interference and Surveillance. 15 Asia-PAC. J. oN HUM. Rts. & L., 203-218.
Roman Zakharov v. Russia, Application no. 47143/06 (ECtHR December 04, 2015).
Rozenshtein, A. Z. (2018). Surveillance Intermediaries. Stan. L. REV., 70.
S. and Marper, Applications nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04 (ECtHR December 04, 2008).
Schweda, S. (2015). UK surveillance under judicial scrutiny: GCHQ intelligence sharing with NSA contravened human rights, but is now legal. Eur. Data Prot. L. Rev, 1, 61-69.
Scott, P. F. (2017). General Warrants, Thematic Warrants, Bulk Warrants: Property Interference for National Security Purposes. N. IR. LEGAL Q., 68, 99-121.
Squires, D. (2006). The Problem with Entrapment. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(2), 351-376.
Tokson, M. (2021). Inescapable Surveillance. CORNELL L. REV., 106, 409.
Turanjanin, V. (2020). Video Surveillance of the Employees Between the Rights to Privacy and Rights to Property after Lopez Ribalda and Others v. Spain. University of Bologna Law Review, Vol. 5, no. 2, 268-293.
Ünver, H. A. (2018). Politics of Digital Surveillance. National Security and Privacy 5 .
Yadin, G. (2017). Virtual Reality Surveillance. 35 CARDOZO Arts & ENT. L.J., 707-743.
Weber, S. J. (1971). Habeas Data: The Right of Privacy Versus Computer Surveillance. U.S.F. L. REV., 5 , 358.
Wong, C. M. (2015). Internet at a Crossroads: How Government Surveillance Threatens How We Communicate. World report, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, 1-13.
Woodburn, N. (2016). NSA Surveillance and Interference with Citizens' Property Rights. FAULKNER L. REV., 7, 287-299.






Criminalistic and Criminal Justice Aspects in Solving and Proving of Criminal Of