The applicants 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 Sysoyevy v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 10 November 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 11 October 2017.<\/p>\n 2. The applicants were represented by Ms T. Tretyak, a lawyer practising in Gelendzhik.<\/p>\n 3. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 5. The applicants complained of the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicants complained that the interception of their telephone conversations in the course of the criminal proceedings against them had violated their right to respect for their private life, home and correspondence. They 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. 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 \u201cin accordance with law\u201d, pursued one or more legitimate aim or aims as defined in the second paragraph and was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d to achieve those aims (see, among other authorities, Goranova\u2011Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739\/05, \u00a7 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 \u201cnecessity in a democratic society\u201d of the contested surveillance measures and to furnish sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (see Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431\/05 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7 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, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a093-100, 7\u00a0November 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 \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d against him and to apply the \u201cnecessity in a democratic society\u201d and \u201cproportionality\u201d tests).<\/p>\n 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, \u00a7\u00a7 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., \u00a7107 in fine).<\/p>\n 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 case the courts did not verify the existence of a \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d and did not apply the \u201cnecessity in a democratic society test\u201d when examining the applicants\u2019 complaints.<\/p>\n 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 11. 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 12. 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, cited above, 7 November 2017, Dudchenko, cited above, Moskalev v.\u00a0Russia, no. 44045\/05, 7 November 2017 and Konstantin Moskalev v.\u00a0Russia, no. 59589\/10, 7 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 13. 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 of the Convention concerning the secret surveillance in the context of the criminal proceedings;<\/p>\n 3. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, 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 amounts 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 1 December 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Darian Pavli __________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF SYSOYEVY v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 74779\/17)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n1 December 2022<\/p>\n
\nDarian Pavli, President,
\nIoannis Ktistakis,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, ActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\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