The applicants complained of the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n
European Court of Human Rights This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Trevogin and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 7 December 2023,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications 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 the various dates indicated in the appended table<\/p>\n 2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. Jurisdiction<\/p>\n 6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792\/10 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201173, 17 January 2023).<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention<\/p>\n 7. The applicants complained principally of the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 8. 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 would lead 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\u2011100, 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 9. The Court further refers to its earlier findings that (1) the Russian legislation which permitted the police to conduct secret surveillance without judicial authorisation fell short of the standards of the quality of law set out in Article\u00a08 of the Convention (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a073\u201183, 10 March 2009) and (2) the refusal on the part of the domestic authorities to disclose a surveillance authorisation to the applicants without a valid reason deprived them of any possibility to have the lawfulness of the surveillance measures and their \u201cnecessity in a democratic society\u201d reviewed and amounted to a violation of Article\u00a08 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, \u0160antare and\u00a0Labaz\u0146ikovs v.\u00a0Latvia, no. 34148\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a060-62, 31\u00a0March 2016; Radzhab\u00a0Magomedov v.\u00a0Russia, no. 20933\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a080-84, 20\u00a0December 2016; and Zubkov and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0122-32).<\/p>\n 10. 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 11. 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 cases under consideration (1) the interception and recording of the applicants\u2019 communications conducted in the absence of a judicial authorisation were not accompanied by adequate safeguards against various possible abuses, were open to arbitrariness and inconsistent with the requirement of lawfulness and (2) the domestic 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. Moreover, (3) the refusal to disclose the surveillance authorisation to the applicants without any valid reason deprived them of any possibility to have the lawfulness of the measure, and its \u201cnecessity in a democratic society\u201d, reviewed by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles of Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/p>\n 13. Some applicants 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\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(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\u2011established case-law (see, among other authorities, Svinarenko and\u00a0Slyadnev v.\u00a0Russia\u00a0[GC], nos.\u00a032541\/08 and 43441\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning placement in a metal cage in a courtroom during criminal proceedings, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0139-49 and 154\u201158, 22 May 2012, regarding length and speediness of review of pre-trial detention, Karelin v. Russia, no. 926\/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings, Misan v.\u00a0Russia, no. 4261\/04, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a053-64, 2 October 2014, related to a search of the applicant\u2019s home conducted in the absence of safeguards, and Konstantin\u00a0Moskalev v.\u00a0Russia, no. 59589\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a023-36, 7 November 2017, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about the secret surveillance).<\/p>\n 14. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints lodged by some applicants under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the placement in a metal cage in courtrooms (compare Valyuzhenich v.Russia, no. 10597\/13, \u00a7 27, 26 March 2019).<\/p>\n V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 15. 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, Dudchenko, both cited above, Moskalev v.\u00a0Russia, 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16\u00a0September 2022;<\/p>\n 3. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings;<\/p>\n 5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);<\/p>\n 6. Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints lodged under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the placement in a metal cage in courtrooms;<\/p>\n 7. Holds<\/p>\n (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;<\/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 11 January 2024, 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 \u00a0Mar\u00eda El\u00f3segui __________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nFIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF TREVOGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 61147\/13 and 10 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n11 January 2024<\/p>\n
\nMar\u00eda El\u00f3segui, President,
\nMattias Guyomar,
\nKate\u0159ina \u0160im\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings)<\/p>\n