The applicant complained of the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Popov v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 20 April 2018.<\/p>\n 2. The applicant was represented by Mr P.D. Kireyev, a lawyer practising in Krasnoyarsk.<\/p>\n 3. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 5. The applicant complained of the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicant complained of the interception of his telephone conversations with his counsel in the context of the criminal proceedings. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.<\/p>\n 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 7. In the leading case of Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0101\u201111, 7\u00a0November 2017, the Court has already established that Russian law does not provide for any safeguards against abuse of power in cases where legally privileged material has been acquired through measures of secret surveillance and that it does not meet the \u201cquality of law\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n 8. 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 case the surveillance measures applied to the applicant did not meet the requirements of Article\u00a08 of the Convention as elucidated in the Court\u2019s case-law.<\/p>\n 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a08 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 10. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200\/05, 7 November 2017, Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431\/05 and 2 others, 7 November 2017, Dudchenko, cited above, Moskalev v. Russia, no. 44045\/05, 7\u00a0November 2017 and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589\/10, 7\u00a0November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 12. 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings;<\/p>\n 3. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 October 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Darian Pavli __________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF POPOV v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 20298\/18)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n27 October 2022<\/p>\n
\nDarian Pavli, President,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings)<\/p>\n