CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s760DC008 { font-family:Arial; color:#172535 } .s90528624 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#172535 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 January 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 37050/22 FORENINGEN IMOD ULOVLIG LOGNING against Denmark lodged on 22 July 2022 communicated on 10 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, t he Association Against Illegal Surveillance (Foreningen imod Ulovlig Logning ), claimed in vain before the domestic courts that executive order no. 988 of 28 September 2006 (“the Logging Order”) which contained provisions on the duty of telecommunications organisations to log, and retain for one year, certain information about their users’ telecommunications for use in criminal cases, was fully or partly invalid or inapplicable as being in contravention of EU law and the Convention, and that the Ministry of Justice had failed to fulfil its duty to bring the Danish logging rules into compliance with EU law as quickly as possible. By a final judgment of 30 March 2022 the Supreme Court held against the applicant association. It found no basis for holding that the Logging Order, or certain provisions of it, was generally and universally invalid/inapplicable irrespective of the circumstances. It noted that Danish courts can make a finding that the Logging Order is invalid/inapplicable in respect of specific legal matters, to the extent that application of the Order would be contrary to EU law or the Convention. The Supreme Court dismissed the second claim, finding that the applicant association lacked legal interest. A new executive order, no. 381 of 29 March 2022, entered into force on 30   March 2022. Before the Court, the applicant association relies on Articles 8, 10 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant association claim to be the victim of a violation of Articles 8, 10 and 13 (see, inter alia, Centrum för rättvisa v.   Sweden [GC], no. 35252/08, § 166-177, 25 May 2021)?   2.     Was the Supreme Court judgment of 30 March 2022 in breach of Articles 8, 10 or 13 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Big Brother Watch and   Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 58170/13, and Ekimdzhiev and   Others v. Bulgaria , no. 70078/12, 11 January 2022)?