CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 juin 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } Published on 26 June 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no.   61147/13 Yevgeniy Yuryevich TREVOGIN against Russia and 10 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 1 June 2023, 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     61147/13* 15/08/2013 Yevgeniy Yuryevich TREVOGIN 1977 Roman Valeryevich Kuznetsov Murmansk Audio and video recording of the alleged perpetrators as part of the operative experiment 20/05/2011 - police department no.   1, Murmansk 13/06/2011 - police department no.1, Murmansk 16/06/2011 - police department no.1, Murmansk The applicant’s conviction of drug dealing was upheld on appeal by the Murmansk Regional Court on 21/06/2013 The use of “surveillance” or “operative experiment” measures not accompanied by sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness (“quality of law”), no judicial authorisation of the surveillance measures       16492/18* 21/03/2018 Bogdan Antonovich NAUMENKO 1996 Natalya Vladimirovna Korchuganova Moscow Interception of telephone communications 19/03/2015 and 31/03/2015 Novosibirsk Regional Court The applicant was found guilty of drug dealings. The information obtained as a result of interception of telephone communications was used in his trial. His conviction was upheld on appeal on 11/10/2017 by the Novosibirsk Regional Court The courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”       48812/19* 09/09/2019 Sergey Leonidovich ZHOLOBETSKIY 1971     Interception of telephone communications, collection of data from technical channels of communication 27/04/2017, Kemerovo Regional Court Information obtained by the interception served as a ground for the applicant’s dismissal from the police, challenged in courts to no avail, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 02/04/2019 The courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”       13490/20* 18/02/2020 Valeriy Fralyevich KARGAYEV 1975 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov Taganrog Interception of telephone communications, collection of data from technical channels of communication   The measures were applied since 14/08/2018, the end date is unclear. On 25/11/2019 the applicant’s request to provide him with a copy of the decision authorising surveillance was dismissed The applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him/her Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, 18/10/2019 to 30/12/2019,     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the appeal against the detention order of 30/12/2019 (appeal lodged on the same date) was examined on 24/01/2020 (25 days), Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings and in respect of interception of telephone communications, collection of data from technical channels of communication     50256/21 30/09/2021 Kunay Avaz kyzy ABBASOVA 1982 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Brester Krasnoyarsk Interception of telephone communications 03/07/2019 Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk       The applicant, an attorney at the relevant time, learnt about the interception on 14/04/2021 The use of “surveillance” or “operative experiment” measures not accompanied by sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness (“quality of law”), 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 respect of interception of telephone communications, collection of data from technical channels of communication     1292/22* 17/12/2021 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich VAKULENKO 1980 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov Taganrog Interception of telephone communications 26/05/2021, 08/06/2021, 06/07/2021, 14/07/2021, 20/07/2021, 30/07/2021, 10/08/2021,19/08/2021, Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don The applicant learnt of the interception from the materials prepared by the police on 10/09/2021 proposing to institute criminal proceedings on the basis of the information obtained as a result of the interception of telephone communications between the applicant and other alleged perpetrators; the criminal proceedings were instituted on 13/09/2021 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. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of interception of phone communications,   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - pre-trial detention since 24/09/2021 and pending on the date when the application was lodged, authorised by the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Rostov-on-Don and Rostov Regional Court: failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding     3168/22* 17/12/2021 Konstantin Nikolayevich MOGILEV 1987 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov Taganrog Interception of telephone communications 26/05/2021, 08/06/2021, 06/07/2021, 14/07/2021, 20/07/2021, 30/07/2021, 10/08/2021, 19/08/2021 Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don The applicant learnt of the interception from the materials prepared by the police on 10/09/2021 proposing to institute criminal proceedings on the basis of the information obtained as a result of the interception of telephone communications between the applicant and other alleged perpetrators; the criminal proceedings were instituted on 13/09/2021 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. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of interception of telephone communications,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 24/08/2021, Aksayskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, 20/10/2021, Rostov Regional Court, 10-days administrative detention     7742/22* 16/01/2022 Viktoriya Andreyevna KONONENKO 1981 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov Taganrog Interception of telephone communications 26/05/2021, 08/06/2021, 06/07/2021, 14/07/2021, 20/07/2021, 30/07/2021, 10/08/2021, 19/08/2021 Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don Lack of access to the judicial decision authorising interception of telephone communications. On 29/10/2021 the investigator informed the applicant that she can familiarise with the court decisions as soon as the preliminary investigation is over. Apparently, there are several court orders on the interception. 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 - final decision taken on 13/10/2021 by the Rostov Regional Court, 5   days’ administrative detention,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of interception of telephone communications     8106/22* 16/01/2022 Roman Yuryevich TROTSENKO 1981 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov Taganrog Interception of telephone communications, collection of data from technical channels of communication 26/05/2021, 08/06/2021, 06/07/2021, 14/07/2021, 20/07/2021, 30/07/2021, 10/08/2021, 19/08/2021 Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don   Lack of access to the judicial decisions authorising interception of telephone communications. On 29/10/2021 the investigator informed the applicant that he can familiarise with the court orders as soon as the preliminary investigation is over. Apparently, there are several court orders on the interception. 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 - final decision taken on 27/09/2021 by the Rostov Regional Court, 14   days’ administrative detention,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of interception of telephone communication and unlawful searches   15963/22* 25/02/2022 Pavel Pavlovich ZAYFERT 1981 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov Taganrog Interception of telephone communications 09/04/2020 the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don The applicant was not a suspect at the moment of the interception authorisation. He was informed about the District Court’s decision on 07/10/2021 when he was questioned by an investigator. On 28/10/2021 the criminal proceedings were initiated against him. The applicant was not granted access to the District Court’s decision. 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 respect of interception of telephone communications   38745/22 29/07/2022 Sergey Valentinovich BOSTYAKOV 1971 Roman Mikhaylovich Kashirin Pskov Collection of data from technical channels of communication, interception of telephone communications, obtaining computer information, interception of telephone communications 28/02/2022, Pskov Regional Court; The applicant learnt about secret surveillance after its results had been declassified by officials and enclosed in the criminal case file (decision of 31/05/2022).   The courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test” Art. 8 (1) - unlawful search - Search of the applicant’s home (allegedly in the ownership of his son); Date of the search authorisation and issuing authority: 31/05/2022, Pskov District Court of the Pskov Region; Date of search: 27/05/2022; Means of exhaustion: The applicant appealed against the court authorisation of the Pskov District Court which issued its decision on 31/05/2022 and the decision was upheld by the Pskov Regional Court on appeal on 13/07/2022. Specific defects: no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search, particular circumstances: manner of the search, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: lawyer not allowed to assist the applicant during the search, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation