FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF VOROBYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 20291/17 and 25 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 September 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vorobyev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 July 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained about the statutory requirement for Internet communications providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law‑enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
Jurisdiction6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023; and Podchasov v. Russia, no. 33696/19, § 35, 13 February 2024).
LOCUS STANDI IN APPLICATION No. 22802/177. Following the death of the applicant, Mr Navalnyy (application no. 22802/17), his widow, Ms Yulia Borisovna Navalnaya, expressed her wish to pursue the application on behalf of the deceased applicant (see the appended table).
8. The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case, his or her heirs or close relatives may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014, with further references). In the present case, the applicant’s widow submitted documents confirming that she was the applicant’s heir. In these circumstances, the Court considers that Ms Navalnaya has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in place of her late husband.
9. In the light of the above, the Court accepts that Ms Navalnaya has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in place of her deceased husband. It will therefore continue to deal with the case at her request. For convenience, however, it will continue to refer to Mr Navalnyy as the applicant in the present judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 § 1 of the Convention10. The applicants complained principally about the statutory requirement for Internet communications providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted. They relied on Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.
11. The Court has earlier found that the contested legislation providing for the retention of all Internet communications of all users, the security services’ direct access to the data stored without adequate safeguards against abuse and the requirement to decrypt encrypted communications, as applied to end-to-end encrypted communications, cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society. In so far as this legislation permits the public authorities to have access, on a generalised basis and without sufficient safeguards, to the content of electronic communications, it impairs the very essence of the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention (see Podchasov, cited above, §§ 36-81).
12. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the continuous storage of the applicants’ Internet communications and related communications data by their Internet communications providers, the authorities’ potential access to these data and the obligation to decrypt them if they are encrypted, pursuant to the domestic law, violated the applicants’ Article 8 rights.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW14. All applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 8. The applicant in application no. 30027/18 also complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the contested legislation did not contain sufficient safeguards for the protection of journalistic sources. The Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu, cited above, § 156; and Podchasov, cited above, § 82).
15. The applicant in application no. 36437/19 submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO); RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 101-13, 11 May 2021 and Bodalev v. Russia, no. 67200/12, §§ 101-07, 6 September 2022, as to various interferences with the right to freedom of expression and the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for those interferences.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION16. The Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage caused to the applicants by the violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see Podchasov, cited above, § 86).
17. As regards application no. 36437/19, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Mochalov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 73383/17 and 17 others, 16 May 2024, and, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award Ms Karavayeva 4,000 euros (EUR).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Holds that Ms Navalnaya, the widow of the applicant, Mr Aleksey Navalnyy, in application no. 22802/17, has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in place of her late husband;Declares the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention in all applications and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court in application no. 36437/19, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 10 of the Convention in respect of application no. 30027/18 and Article 13 of the Convention in respect of all applications;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court in application no. 36437/19; Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay Ms Yelena Nikolayevna Karavayeva (application no. 36437/19) within three months, EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the other applicants.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 September 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention
(secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Type of secret surveillance
Date of the surveillance authorisation
Name of the issuing authority
Other relevant information
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
20291/17
27/02/2017
Viktor Viktorovich VOROBYEV
1989
the statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a politician and human rights activist. He is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption and of mail.yandex.ru service. He also has accounts on social networking services VKontakte and Odnoklassniki.
22802/17
01/03/2017
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
Born in 1976
Deceased in 2024
Heir:
Yulia Borisovna NAVALNAYA
1976
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow,
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich, Vilnius
the statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted
The applicant was an opposition politician and anti-corruption activist. He was a user of mail.yandex.ru service. He also had accounts on social networking services VKontakte and Odnoklassniki.
30027/18
13/06/2018
Aleksandr Vladimirovich PLYUSHCHEV
1972
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
the statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 20/12/2017 by the Moscow City Court.
The applicant is an opposition journalist. He is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
32920/19
17/06/2019
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich PROKOPENKO
1988
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
the statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a political activist. He is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption
33098/19
17/06/2019
Yaroslav Aleksandrovich KARGIN
1983
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
the statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a lawyer. He is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption
33700/19
18/06/2019
Roman Denisovich KISELEV
1994
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
the statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a human rights lawyer. He is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption
34263/19
18/06/2019
Oleg Anatolyevich KRAYEV
1981
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
the statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a political activist. He is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption
34546/19
20/06/2019
Ramil Akhatovich USMANOV
1992
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
the statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a political activist. He is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption
34547/19
20/06/2019
Natalya Viktorovna MARINKEVICH
1977
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
34677/19
11/06/2019
Roman Aleksandrovich KOROTAYEV
1978
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is the head of an NGO. He is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
34796/19
21/06/2019
Maksim Valeryevich NAUMOV
1989
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
34807/19
18/06/2019
Diana Aleksandrovna LEGRAND
1988
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a lawyer. She is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
34911/19
20/06/2019
Georgiy Vladimirovich KOLOTOV
1986
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a political activist. He is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
34931/19
20/06/2019
Andrey Eduardovich VELDER
1978
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a political activist. He is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption
34951/19
11/06/2019
Maksim Aleksandrovich YAKUNOV
1981
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
34952/19
11/06/2019
Aleksandr Sergeyevich ALEKSEYEV
1986
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
35118/19
20/06/2019
Ilya Andreyevich RUSINOV
1998
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a political activist. He is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
35404/19
21/06/2019
Vladimir Fedorovich GARNACHUK
1970
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 12/02/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a political activist. He is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption
35538/19
22/06/2019
Aleksey Vladimirovich SHIRINYA
1987
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
35879/19
24/06/2019
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich VASILENKO
1983
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
36370/19
24/06/2019
Vasiliy Aleksandrovich AGAPKIN
1970
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
36437/19
28/06/2019
Yelena Nikolayevna KARAVAYEVA
1956
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a political activist. She is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - The applicant was fined (RUB 2,000) in administrative offence proceedings for publishing on social networks a stylised image of the "Smart voting" campaign associated with two associations previously recognised as extremist: "A. Navalnyy’s Election Campaign Team" and "Anti-corruption Foundation". The image was accompanied by a text calling for unity of all opposition forces necessary to win the elections against the ruling pro-Putin party. Final judgment of 26/07/2022 by the Moscow City Court,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final judgment of 26/07/2022 by the Moscow City Court
36530/19
28/06/2019
Yevgeniy Nikolayevich SHCHERBAKOV
1972
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
36618/19
21/06/2019
Yuriy Vladimirovich BESSONOV
1988
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a political activist. He is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
36845/19
21/06/2019
Yegor Aleksandrovich SEMIN
1994
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.
37434/19
24/06/2019
Sergey Vladimirovich YEVSEYEV
1977
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The statutory requirement for Internet communication providers to store the content of all Internet communications and related communications data, and to submit those data to law-enforcement authorities or security services at their request together with information necessary to decrypt electronic messages if they were encrypted.
The applicant challenged the FSB’s disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decryption of communications”. Final judgment of 16/01/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The applicant is a political activist. He is a user of Telegram messaging application which uses end-to-end encryption.