Published on 5 February 2024
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 20202/15
Sergey Vladimirovich IVANOV against Russia
and 11 other applications
(see list appended)
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 11 January 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia.
In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention.
In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website.
SUBJECT MATTER
The applications concern complaints raised under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention relating to secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, 10 March 2009, Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, 7 November 2017, Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, 7 November 2017, Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, 7 November 2017, Moskalev v. Russia, no. 44045/05, 7 November 2017 and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, 7 November 2017).
APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS
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
Specific defects
Other complaints under well-established case-law
20202/15*
08/04/2015
Sergey Vladimirovich IVANOV
1971
Yekaterina Aleksandrovna Dorozhkina
Sarov
interception of telephone communications
20/08/2012, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
the courts did not authorise the interception of the applicant’s conversations, the authorisation was given in respect of another person.
Conviction dates:
16/07/2014, Arzamas Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region. Final - 13/10/2014, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court.
the courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about secret surveillance
56469/15*
07/11/2015
Lyudmila Aleksandrovna NOVOZHILOVA
1963
Akhmed Alabiyevich Glashev
Moscow
interception of telephone communications
18/10/2011, Deputy Head of the Regional Department of the Interior
The data obtained in the course of secret surveillance operation was used in the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charge of disclosure of tax secrets. The final decision on the matter (conviction) was taken by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk on 20/05/2015.
the use of “urgent procedure” that does not provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness (“quality of law”)
Art. 8 (1) - Correspondence - The applicant complains that her employer (Regional Tax Service) collected and stored data relating to her telephone (see Copland v. the United Kingdom)
56631/15*
13/11/2015
Mansur Kakhimovich ZHEKSIMBAYEV
1977
interception of telephone communications
26/04/2011, Orenburg Regional Court
The applicant, an attorney, was charged with accessory to bribery (on 23/05/2011 he allegedly offered a bribe to an investigator on behalf of his client, a defendant in a criminal case); Final judgment in the criminal case convicting the applicant was issued on 26/06/2015
the courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”, the use of “surveillance” or “operative experiment” measures not accompanied by sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness (“quality of law”)
25803/16*
04/05/2016
Garegin Akopovich TOPCHYAN
1967
Valeriy Ivanovich Prilepskiy
Moscow
operative experiment, collection of data from technical channels of communication
16/02/2013, Deputy Head of the Regional Department of the Interior
The applicant was an attorney. Secret surveillance preceded the criminal proceedings against him on the charges of accessory to bribery. He was found guilty as charged and sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment and a fine. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 09/11/2015.
the applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him/her, the use of “urgent procedure” that does not provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness (“quality of law”)
36818/17*
12/05/2017
Ruslan Sergeyevich PYLAYEV
1976
Yegor Leonidovych Boychenko
Strasbourg
interception of telephone communications
no authorisation
The telephone communications were recorded by witness B., a high- ranking police officer at the time, who subsequently handed over the recordings to the investigator, including the telephone conversation with the applicant on 03/10/2014; the applicant raised the complaint in the course of the criminal proceedings against him which ended on 16/02/2017 with the appeal judgment of the Primorye Regional Court
the recordings were made in the absence of a judicial authorisation and had no basis in domestic law (compare Van Vondle v. the Netherlands), the applicant was deprived of the minimum degree of protection
11430/18*
01/03/2018
Mikhail Yevgenyevich PUGACHEV
1969
interception of electronic communications, interception of telephone communications, interception of postal communications, surveillance (“наблюдение”)
Unknown
The applicant, a practising attorney, alleges that he was subjected to secret surveillance and that the law enforcement authorities refused to disclose the relevant information to him. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 11/01/2018.
the applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him/her, the use of “surveillance” or “operative experiment” measures not accompanied by sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness (“quality of law”)
19738/18*
20/04/2018
Albert Mudarisovich BAYAZITOV
1988
Sergey Vyacheslavovich Kolosovskiy
Yekaterinburg
interception of telephone communications
the date of the authorisation of the surveillance measure by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court was not disclosed to the applicant
On 05/09/2015 the secret service intercepted telephone communication between the applicant and his lawyer. Its transcript was subsequently admitted as evidence. The applicant was found guilty of public incitement to religious hatred or hostility. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on 22/12/2017
lack of safeguards in case of accidental interception of a suspect’s communications with counsel (“quality of law”), the applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him/her
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in conjunction with Article 8
64654/19
04/12/2019
Gera Yuryevna GUZHVA
1995
Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov
Taganrog
interception of telephone communications
25/08/2017, Oktyabrskiy District Court of the Rostov Region
The applicant’s request to provide access to the judicial decision authorising interception of her telephone communications lodged on 06/09/2019 was dismissed by the investigator on 30/10/2019
the applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him/her
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in conjunction with Article 8 complaint
65280/19*
04/12/2019
Marks-Agness Vladimirovna KALASHNIK-SAVELCHENKO
1990
Natalya Viktorovna Yastrebova
Rostov-on-Don
interception of telephone communications
22/08/2017, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov Region; the applicant raised the issue of interception in the criminal proceedings against him; Conviction of illegal drug sale (Novocherkassk Town Court of Rostov Region, 03/06/2020, upheld on appeal by Rostov Regional Court, 01/09/2020; conviction upheld by the Fourth Cassation Court, on 27/01/2021).
The applicant learned about the interception of his telephone communication in October 2019 when he studied the case-file in his criminal case
the applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him/her
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van; 26/10/2018-20/01/2020; single-occupancy cubicle, 0.3 sq.m of personal space, ceiling height inside the van – 163 cm, lack of fresh air, travel time ranging from 1h30 to 2h30 on each occasion (introduction date - 01/02/2020),
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport - and in respect of the complaint under Article 8,
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Novocherkassk Town Court - 29/07/2019, 12/09/2019, 26/09/2019
5495/20
31/12/2019
Vyacheslav Alekseyevich TSYGANOK
1981
Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov
Taganrog
interception of telephone communications
15/05/2019, Taganrog Town Court
On 07/11/2019 the Town Court declassified the decision of 15/05/2019;
On 12/10/2019 the transport police opened criminal investigation against the applicant on the charges of fraud.
On 12/11/2019 the transport police declassified the data collected during interception of the applicant’s telephone communications
the courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in conjunction with Article 8 complaint
13810/20*
04/03/2020
Violetta Alekseyevna VYDYSH
1975
Tatyana Viktorovna Sukhareva
Moscow
interception of telephone communications
20/06/2018, 05/07/2018, Rostov-on-Don Garrisson Military Court
On 21/06/2018 the investigative committee instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant’s husband, lieutenant colonel of the military medical service, on the charges of fraud.
On 06/09/2019 the applicant learned of the interception of her telephone communications
the use of “surveillance” or “operative experiment” measures not accompanied by sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness (“quality of law”)
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in conjunction with Article 8 complaint
927/22*
17/12/2021
Yuriy Viktorovich GUKOV
1980
Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov
Taganrog
interception of telephone communications
06/07/2021, 30/07/2021, 26/05/2021, 08/06/2021, 14/07/2021, 20/07/2021, 19/08/2021, 10/08/2021 by the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don
the applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him, the courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of administrative proceedings in the applicant’s respect; conviction under Article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO, Rostov Regional Court on 08/11/2021 (appeal decision),
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of interception of phone communications