CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 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 } .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 } .sB5916D70 { height:46.15pt } .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 } .sAB58CAE { height:99pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 10 June 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   42165/19 Vladimir Vladimirovich KISELEV against Russia (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application on 16 May 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Russia. In the enclosed table, 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 application 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 Application raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings) 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 42165/19 12/07/2019 Vladimir Vladimirovich KISELEV 1991 Roman Mikhaylovich Kashirin Pskov interception of telephone communications 01/03/2018, Pskov Regional Court On 13/03/2018 the secret surveillance files were de-classified and on 14/03/2018 the investigative committee instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, a police officer at the relevant time, on the charge of bribe taking. According to the applicant, he learnt about interception of his telephone communications in March 2019. On 12/03/2019 he appealed against the decision of 01/03/2018. On 01/07/2019 the Pskov Regional Court dismissed the complaint. 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