Last Updated on October 27, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF FEDONIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 30296/17 and 2 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Fedonin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and ViktoriyaMaradudina,Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention
6. The applicants complained of the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings.They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
7. The Court reiterates that the measures aimed at interception of telephone communications amounted to an interference with the exercise of the rights set out in Article 8 of the Convention and that such interference will give rise to a breach of Article 8 of the Convention unless it can be shown that it was “in accordance with law”, pursued one or more legitimate aim or aims as defined in the second paragraph and was “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve those aims (see, among other authorities, Goranova‑Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 45, 8 March 2011). It further reiterates that it is the obligation of the domestic courts to carry out an effective judicial review of the lawfulness and “necessity in a democratic society” of the contested surveillance measures and to furnish sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, §§ 131, 7 November 2017). The failure to comply with these requirements has led the Court to conclude to a violation of the Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, §§ 93-100, 7 November 2017, in which it was established that the domestic courts failed to verify, when authorising covert surveillance in respect of the applicant, whether there was a “reasonable suspicion” against him and to apply the “necessity in a democratic society” and “proportionality” tests).
8. The Court does not lose sight that in earlier cases against Russia it has not established an availability of effective remedies for the applicants to exhaust prior to introducing a complaint before the Court (see, for example, Zubkov and Others, cited above, §§ 85-99). In this connection, it reiterates that the applicants cannot be reproached for their attempt to bring their grievances to the attention of the domestic courts through the remedies which they mistakenly considered effective in the absence of evidence that they were aware or should have become aware of the futility of their course of action (ibid., §107 in fine).
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases (as set out in the appended table) the courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test” when examining the applicants’ complaints. The applicants’ ability to challenge the legal and factual grounds for ordering surveillance measures against them was further undermined by the refusal of access to the surveillance authorisations.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In application no. 3747/18 the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012, concerning conditions of transport of detainees, Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning placement in a metal cage in the courtroom, Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, §§ 23-36, 7 November 2017, regarding the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about the secret surveillance).
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 30296/17 the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 8 of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, 7 November 2017, Zubkov and Others, cited above, Dudchenko, cited above, Moskalev v. Russia, no. 44045/05, 7 November 2017 and Konstantin Moskalev, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
16. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of application no. 30296/17 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention concerning the secret surveillance in the context of the criminal proceedings;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
__________
APPENDIX
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
|
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 | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[i] |
| 1. | 30296/17
23/03/2017 |
Aleksandr Anatolyevich FEDONIN
1976 |
interception of telephone communications | 09/11/2012, 16/11/2012, 19/11/2012, 28/11/2012, Nizhnekamsk Town Court of Tatarstan Republic | The applicant was found guilty of organisation of a criminal gang and 18 counts of drug dealing. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 01/02/2017. | the courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test” | 7,500 | |
| 2. | 42210/17
31/05/2017 |
Vladimir Nikolayevich VASKIN
1980 |
collection of data from technical channels of communication, interception of telephone communications | 04/08/2015, Sovetskiy District Court of Bryansk | The applicant was found guilty of drug dealing. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Bryansk Regional Court on 18/12/2016. | the courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test” | 7,500 | |
| 3. | 3747/18
31/12/2017 |
Anton Andreyevich GUSEV
1986 |
collection of data from technical channels of communication, interception of telephone communications | 12/11/2014, St Petersburg City Court
23/03/2015, St Petersburg City Court 01/04/2015, St Petersburg City Court 10/04/2015, St Petersburg City Court |
No information from the casefile that the applicant knew about the measures before 22/09/2017 when the lawyer raised the issue before the trial 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 – regarding the applicant’s complaint about secret surveillance;
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – van 17/12/2015 – 05/02/2018, applicant transported on numerous occasions, lack of fresh air, lack of seat belts, with inmates infected with contagious disease, no or restricted access to toilet, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, lack or insufficient quantity of food, 0.5 sq. m. per inmate; inadequate conditions in a holding cell at a courthouse 12/08/2016 – 05/02/2018, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, 0.6 q. m. per inmate. Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Moscow District Court of St Petersburg, during the hearings 12/08/2016 – 05/02/2018, judgment date – 05/02/2018 |
9,750 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply