Misbehaviourconsequently this fact alone cannot serve

misbehaviour.Consequently, this fact alone cannot serve as an aggravating factor and it
cannot be considered as what ‘past behaviour’ consisted of. The Applicant concludes that this
reason for his prosecution was unsubstantiated. Other reasons, on which the Respondent State
might have made its opinion of him being capable of violating the law (such as his human
rights activism, for instance), are irrelevant because only the evidence presented and assessed
in court may become the basis of the judicial decision.
A further function of a reasoned decision is to demonstrate to the parties that they
have been heard. 85 Though the Applicant had an access to the appellate trial and was able to
present his position, nevertheless, taking into account the new basis for the prosecution's
charge - ‘past behaviour’ - the Applicant was left with a certain sensation of confusion,
86
which should not be the case of making a reasoned adequate decision in the fair trial.
In light of the stated above, the Applicant submits that there was no fair trial in his
case in violation of Article 6 § 1 and 3 (d).
Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention
The Applicant submits that the Respondent State has violated Article 13 in
conjunction with Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention due to the lack of an effective remedy
for the violations of Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention.
1. Violation of the Applicant’s right to appeal against surveillance legislation
The Applicant complained that he had no effective remedy under Aletheian law in
respect of his complaint of unlawful interference with his right to respect for his private life
as a result of using both the surveillance camera system and the facial-recognition software
system PanOptis.
In the Court’s view, Article 13 requires that where an individual considers himself to
have been prejudiced by a measure allegedly in breach of the Convention, he should have a
remedy before a national authority in order both to have his claim decided and, if appropriate,
to obtain redress. Thus Article 13 must be interpreted as guaranteeing an "effective remedy
85
Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia, app. no. 184/02, § 83
86
Hirvisaari v. Finland, app. no. 49684/99, §31
26

before a national authority" to everyone who claims that his rights and freedoms under the
Convention have been violated. 87
In cases involving Article 8 of the Convention this means that the authority has to
carry out a balancing exercise and examine whether the interference with the applicant’s
rights answered a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued,
that is, whether it amounted to a justifiable limitation of his rights.
88
In the present case, like in Khan v. the United Kingdom , the appellate court was not
capable of providing a remedy, because it was not open to the court to deal with the substance
of the Convention complaint about the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his
private life was not “in accordance with the law”
89
as the first-instance court did not