CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 janvier 2024

.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 } .s64DF07F { height:98.95pt } 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