FIRST SECTION
Application no. 41900/06
Aleksey Aleksandrovich POPKOV
against Russia
lodged on 30 September 2006
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aleksey Aleksandrovich Popkov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Bratsk, Irkutsk region.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was a police officer with the Irkutsk Regional Department of the Federal Drug Control Service. He was suspected of disclosing classified information concerning ongoing anti-drug operations to third parties.
On 1 March 2005 the Irkutsk Regional Court authorised the tapping of the applicant’s telephone. The applicant’s telephone conversations of 18 and 22 March 2005 were tapped.
On 27 April 2005 the Head of the Regional Department ordered an internal investigation into the alleged disclosure of classified information by the applicant.
On 28 April 2005 officer B., in charge of the internal investigation, established that the information disclosed by the applicant could be classified as State secret and ordered that it be declassified in order for it to be used as evidence in the proceedings against the applicant.
On 31 May 2005 the officers in charge of the internal investigation prepared a report confirming the allegations against the applicant. In particular, they based their findings on the tapped telephone conversations the applicant had held on 18 and 22 March 2005.
On 21 June 2005 the applicant was dismissed for “a serious disciplinary violation”.
On 14 July 2005 the applicant brought a civil action challenging his dismissal in court.
On an unspecified date the Irkutsk Regional Court opened a civil trial in the applicant’s case. The court conducted the hearings in camera. It heard the applicant, the representatives of the Regional Department of the Federal Drug Control Service and witnesses for both parties; it studied the materials of the internal investigation and heard the recordings of the applicant’s telephone conversations with certain persons.
On 26 December 2005 the Irkutsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. The court subsequently refused to provide the applicant with an opportunity to copy the materials in the case file, including the judgment and the record of the hearing, noting that all those materials were classified as State secret. The applicant was allowed to study the case file in an office at the court.
On 31 March 2006 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of 26 December 2005 on appeal. The appeal hearing was closed to the public.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that, in the course of the civil proceedings against him, he was unable to make copies of the materials in the case file, including the judgment and the record of the hearing, while the respondent party had been provided with copies of those documents and that his case was heard in camera.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the tapping of his telephone.
The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his grievances under Article 8.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the court’s refusal to issue the applicant with a copy of the record of the court’s hearing and judgment in his case delivered by the Irkutsk Regional Court on 26 December 2005 while the respondent party had an opportunity to receive those documents?
2. Was the exclusion of the public in the present case “strictly necessary” for one of the purposes stated in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
4. If so, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention?
5. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy