PODCHASOV v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 33696/19 • ECHR ID: 001-211286
Document date: June 21, 2021
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 1
Published on 12 July 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 33696/19 Anton Valeryevich PODCHASOV against Russia lodged on 18 June 2019 c ommunicated on 21 June 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant complains about the domestic legal provisions requiring “communications service providers” and “Internet communications organisers” to store all communications data for up to three years and the contents of all communications for up to six months and to submit that data to law-enforcement authorities or security services in cases specified by law together with information necessary to decode electronic messages if they are coded.
The applicant is a user of the Telegram Messenger which provides for a possibility of end-to-end encryption. In 2017 the Federal Security Service issued a disclosure order requiring Telegram Messenger company to disclose technical information which would facilitate “the decoding of communications”. The applicant challenged that order in courts, arguing that it had breached his right to respect for his private life and correspondence. His claim was dismissed after the domestic courts found that he had no standing to challenge the disclosure order .
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life and correspondence guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention as a result of the mere existence of the contested legislation (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 170-79, ECHR 2015)? Does the contested legislation meet the “quality of law” requirements by providing for adequate and effective guarantees against arbitrariness and the risk of abuse? Is it incapable of keeping the “interference” to what is “necessary in a democratic society”?
2. Given the domestic courts ’ finding that the applicant had no standing to challenge the disclosure order addressed to Telegram Messenger company, did he have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?