WEBER AND SARAVIA v. GERMANY DECISION 15 the G 10 Act. The same applied if the person concerned had learned of the monitoring measure by another means, without having been notified. 4. The new G 10 Act 62. A new version of the G 10 Act, which takes into account the principles laid down by the Federal Constitutional Court in its judgment of 14 July 1999, came into force on 26 June 2001. COMPLAINTS 63. The applicants claimed that certain provisions of the Fight Against Crime Act amending the G 10 Act, in their versions as interpreted and modified by the Federal Constitutional Court in its judgment of 14 July 1999, violated their right to respect for their private life and their correspondence as protected by Article 8 of the Convention. They complained in particular about section 3(1), (3), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of the amended G 10 Act. 64. The first applicant further argued that the same provisions of the Fight Against Crime Act infringed freedom of the press as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. 65. The applicants also submitted that the destruction of data (section 3(6) and (7), read in conjunction with section 7(4)), the failure to give notice of restrictions on the secrecy of telecommunications (section 3(8)) and the exclusion of judicial review in certain cases (section 9(6)) in accordance with the Act breached Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW A. The Government’s objections 1. The parties’ submissions (a) The Government 66. The Government argued, firstly, that the application was incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. Both applicants resided in Uruguay and claimed that their Convention rights had been infringed as regards telecommunications from their telephone connections in that country. The monitoring of telecommunications made from abroad, however, had to be qualified as an extraterritorial act. In