CENTRUM FÖR RÄTTVISA v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT 29 meaning of Article 8. However, it can be said that its mail and other communications are covered by the notion of “correspondence” which applies equally to communications originating from private and business premises. Moreover, applicants who are legal persons may fear that they are subjected to secret surveillance and it has accordingly been accepted that they may claim to be victims (see Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, § 60, 28 June 2007, with further references). It is therefore appropriate to examine the complaint under the right to respect for the applicant’s correspondence. 86. Considering that the Government’s objection on victim status is closely linked to the substance of the applicant’s complaint, it must be joined to the merits. 87. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The applicant’s victim status and the existence of an interference (a) The parties’ submissions 88. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention by the mere existence of legislation concerning signals intelligence. The aggregate of control mechanisms, supervisory elements and remedies available constituted sufficient safeguards against abuse of the FRA’s competence to conduct signals intelligence. Furthermore, the possibility that the applicant had been subject to signals intelligence was virtually non-existent. 89. The applicant disagreed with the Government and remarked, with reference to the case of Kennedy v. the United Kingdom (no. 26839/05, 18 May 2010), that its victim status was based on the risk of secret surveillance measures having been applied. (b) The Court’s assessment 90. In the Roman Zakharov v. Russia judgment ([GC], no. 47143/06, § 171, ECHR 2015), which concerned covert interception of mobile telephone communications, the Court, adopting the Kennedy approach, clarified the conditions under which an applicant can claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 8 without having to prove that secret surveillance measures have in fact been applied to him or her specifically. Accordingly, the Court accepts that an applicant can claim to be the victim of a violation occasioned by the mere existence of secret surveillance measures, or