Three United Kingdom-based nonprofit organizations and a German Internet activist have filed a lawsuit against the British government at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), arguing that the UK's electronic spying network is illegal.

Documents provided by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden have shown that the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the sister organization to the NSA, has been one of the most prominent players in digital surveillance, particularly of European traffic.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday at the ECHR in Strasbourg, France by Big Brother Watch, Open Rights Group, English PEN, and Constanze Kurz, who has been a longtime spokesperson for the Chaos Computer Club, a well-known German hacker group.

“Beyond effective legal scrutiny”

In the 67-page filing, the appellants argue that the communications interception is in direct violation of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, Europe’s rough analog to the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Unlike the Fourth Amendment, however, Article 8 specifically carves out a national security exception.

It states:

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

In their filing, the appellants argue that because the newly revealed data collection is “indiscriminate,” it cannot possibly be “subject to any sufficiently precise or ascertainable legal framework and is beyond effective legal scrutiny.”

More precisely:

In effect, the power to obtain and use external communications data by means of intercept is unfettered in published law, as long as it is thought broadly to be in the interests of [national] security or other of the specified generic purpose. There are no adequate criteria by which a court of tribunal could assess the legality of use of any particular intercept material even if the courts had jurisdiction to do so, which they do not.

Holding the powerful accountable

Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch, said in a statement that British laws have been interpreted far more broadly than how they originally were intended.

“The laws governing how Internet data is accessed were written when barely anyone had broadband access and were intended to cover old-fashioned copper telephone lines,” he said. “Parliament did not envisage or intend those laws to permit scooping up details of every communication we send, including content, so it’s absolutely right that GCHQ is held accountable in the courts for its actions.”

The court, which is composed of 47 judges from each of the member states of the Council of Europe, may take months (or years) to render a decision. However, this case likely will be heard by a smaller committee composed of three or seven judges. The ECHR’s own flow chart shows a long process (PDF) that likely awaits this application, along with the 50,000 other new applications that it receives each year.

“The timetable is for the court, but I would hope for the case to be formally communicated to the UK within a couple of months,” Daniel Carey, the chief solicitor in the case, told Ars. “Thereafter, they are likely to have two to three months for their response before the court considers next steps. The quickest case I have done in Strasbourg was determined in 14 months, so I hope that we may get a judgment next year.”