The Court's findings in summary:

• A public search present a clear interference with the right to respect for private life;
• A public search creates humiliation and embarrassment;
• The wide discretion conferred on the police under the 2000 Act has not been curbed by adequate legal safeguards;
• The temporal and geographical restrictions on the powers provided by Parliament have failed to act as any real check on the issuing of authorisations by the executive;
• There is a clear risk of arbitrariness in granting such broad discretion to the police officer;
• The Terror Watchdog's powers are too limited, as he has no right to cancel or alter authorisations;
• The absence of any obligation on the part of the officer to show a reasonable suspicion makes it almost impossible to prove that the powers were improperly exercised.

The court was hearing the case of Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton, two protesters that were stopped in 2003 during a London-based arms trade show.

In its report, the court says that on 09 September 2003, the two protesters 'were both stopped and searched by the police, acting under sections 44-47 of the 2000 Act, while on their way to a demonstration close to an arms fair held in the Docklands area of East London.'

It continues: 'Mr Gillan was riding a bicycle and carrying a rucksack when stopped and searched by two police officers. Ms Quinton, a journalist, was stopped and searched by a police officer and ordered to stop filming in spite of the fact that she showed her press cards. Mr Gillan was allowed to go on his way after having been detained for about 20 minutes; the record of Ms Quinton's search showed she was stopped for five minutes but she thought it was more like 30 minutes.'

Both protesters filed a motion with the High Court. However, on 31 October 2003, the application was dismissed. 'The Court of Appeal, on 29 July 2004, made no order on the applicants' claims against the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and dismissed the claim against the Secretary of State,' says the European Court.

On 8 March 2006, the House of Lords unanimously dismissed the applicants' appeals. 'In particular, the Law Lords were doubtful whether an ordinary superficial search of the person could be said to show a lack of respect for private life, so as to bring Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights into operation. Even if Article 8 did apply, the procedure was in accordance with the law and it would be impossible to regard a proper exercise of the power as other than proportionate when seeking to counter the great danger of terrorism.'

The two protesters lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 January 2005.

The court found that the two protesters' rights had been violated under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 'The Court considered that the use of the coercive powers conferred by the anti-terrorism legislation to require an individual to submit to a detailed search of their person, clothing and personal belongings amounted to a clear interference with the right to respect for private life,' the European Court found in its judgment published today.

it continues: 'The public nature of the search, with the discomfort of having personal information exposed to public view, might even in certain cases compound the seriousness of the interference because of an element of humiliation and embarrassment. The interference could not be compared to searches of travellers at airports. An air traveller may be seen as consenting to such a search by choosing to travel. He knows that he and his bags are liable to be searched before boarding the aeroplane and has a freedom of choice, since he can leave personal items behind and walk away without being subjected to a search. The search powers under section 44 are qualitatively different. The individual can be stopped anywhere and at any time, without notice and without any choice as to whether or not to submit to a search.'

The court added that it was 'struck by the statistical and other evidence showing the extent to which police officers resorted to the powers of stop and search under section 44 of the Act and found that there was a clear risk of arbitrariness in granting such broad discretion to the police officer. While the present cases did not concern black applicants or those of Asian origin, the risks of the discriminatory use of the powers against such persons was a very real consideration and the statistics showed that black and Asian persons were disproportionately affected by the powers. There was, furthermore, a risk that such a widely framed power could be misused against demonstrators and protestors in breach of Article 10 and/or 11 of the Convention.'

It added that the powers granted by Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 were 'not sufficiently circumscribed' and lacked 'adequate legal safeguards against abuse,' according to BBC News.

The two protesters were awarded more than £30,000 in compensation.