The High Court has allowed Digital Rights Ireland Limited to pursue claims that telecommunications data-retention measures may infringe privacy and communications rights. In a preliminary ruling, it also refused the State’s application for security for costs and granted the company’s request to refer questions about an EU directive to the Court of Justice. The judgment did not decide whether the measures were lawful or whether any rights had been breached.
The company alleges that State authorities unlawfully controlled and stored telecommunications data relating to it, its members and other mobile phone users. It challenges, among other things, a provision of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 and EU Directive 2006/24/EC. The defendants deny retaining data related to the company and dispute its claims. Those allegations remain for the substantive proceedings.
Mr Justice William McKechnie ruled that the company had standing to argue that data retention could affect its own privacy and communications rights. He also allowed it to pursue those issues more generally on behalf of citizens, describing that aspect as an actio popularis. He said the ruling on standing did not establish that an interference had occurred or that the company would succeed at trial.
The court refused to order security for costs, despite evidence that the company had limited assets and could not meet the defendants’ costs if they succeeded. The judge considered the case raised issues of public importance about government surveillance and telecommunications data retention, and concluded that requiring security would not be justified in the circumstances.
The judge refused standing for claims based on family and marital privacy and travel, holding that those rights could not be invoked by the company. The order therefore did not permit a general challenge on every right raised in the pleadings.
The court granted the company’s motion for a reference under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It found there was enough information to make a reference at this stage and that the validity of EU law was not for the national court to decide. The judge did not settle the questions to be sent; he invited the parties to suggest wording. The substantive challenge and the reference questions remained unresolved.