SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 12496/18 and 12503/18
Andrei FILIPPOV against Estonia
and Sergei HAMITSKI against Estonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 3 September 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Egidijus Kūris, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Darian Pavli, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by Sven Sillar, a lawyer practising in Tallinn.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the lack of reasoning in the decisions authorising secret surveillance activities in respect of them during criminal proceedings were communicated to the Estonian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention
The Government acknowledged that the decisions authorising secret surveillance activities in respect of the applicants had not complied with the requirement under domestic law to set out the reasons and, therefore, had not corresponded to the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.
The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision.
The applicants were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations. In particular, they were unsatisfied with the sums of compensation offered by the Government and stated that they expected full acquittal of the charges against them.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Estonia, its case-law concerning complaints under Article 8 of the Convention relating to the lack of reasoning in the decisions authorising secret surveillance activities (see, for example, Liblik and Others v. Estonia, nos. 173/15 and 5 others, 28 May 2019, and Dragojević v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, 15 January 2015).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 24 September 2020.
Liv TigerstedtEgidijus Kūris
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention
(reasoning of the continued surveillance activities)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
12496/18
05/03/2018
Andrei FILIPPOV
05/03/2018
16/03/2020
22/05/2020
1,800
12503/18
05/03/2018
Sergei HAMITSKI
07/02/1960
16/03/2020
22/05/2020
1,800
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy