Published on 26 June 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 61147/13 Yevgeniy Yuryevich TREVOGIN against Russia and 10 other applications

(see list appended)

PROCEDURAL INFORMATION

Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 1 June 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia.

In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention.

In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).

For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website .

SUBJECT MATTER

The applications concern complaints raised under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention relating to secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, 10 March 2009, Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, 7 November 2017, Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, 7 November 2017, Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, 7 November 2017, Moskalev v. Russia, no. 44045/05, 7 November 2017 and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, 7 November 2017).

APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

Representative’s name and location

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

61147/13*

15/08/2013

Yevgeniy Yuryevich TREVOGIN

1977Roman Valeryevich Kuznetsov

Murmansk

Audio and video recording of the alleged perpetrators as part of the operative experiment

20/05/2011 - police department no. 1, Murmansk

13/06/2011 - police department no.1, Murmansk

16/06/2011 - police department no.1, Murmansk

The applicant’s conviction of drug dealing was upheld on appeal by the Murmansk Regional Court on 21/06/2013

The use of “surveillance” or “operative experiment” measures not accompanied by sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness (“quality of law”), no judicial authorisation of the surveillance measures

16492/18*

21/03/2018

Bogdan Antonovich NAUMENKO

1996Natalya Vladimirovna Korchuganova

Moscow

Interception of telephone communications

19/03/2015 and 31/03/2015 Novosibirsk Regional Court

The applicant was found guilty of drug dealings. The information obtained as a result of interception of telephone communications was used in his trial. His conviction was upheld on appeal on 11/10/2017 by the Novosibirsk Regional Court

The courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”

48812/19*

09/09/2019

Sergey Leonidovich ZHOLOBETSKIY

1971Interception of telephone communications, collection of data from technical channels of communication

27/04/2017, Kemerovo Regional Court

Information obtained by the interception served as a ground for the applicant’s dismissal from the police, challenged in courts to no avail, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 02/04/2019

The courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”

13490/20*

18/02/2020

Valeriy Fralyevich KARGAYEV

1975Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov

Taganrog

Interception of telephone communications, collection of data from technical channels of communication

The measures were applied since 14/08/2018, the end date is unclear. On 25/11/2019 the applicant’s request to provide him with a copy of the decision authorising surveillance was dismissed

The applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him/her

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, 18/10/2019 to 30/12/2019,

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the appeal against the detention order of 30/12/2019 (appeal lodged on the same date) was examined on 24/01/2020 (25 days),

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings and in respect of interception of telephone communications, collection of data from technical channels of communication

50256/21

30/09/2021

Kunay Avaz kyzy ABBASOVA

1982Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Brester

Krasnoyarsk

Interception of telephone communications

03/07/2019

Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

The applicant, an attorney at the relevant time, learnt about the interception on 14/04/2021

The use of “surveillance” or “operative experiment” measures not accompanied by sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness (“quality of law”), 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 in respect of interception of telephone communications, collection of data from technical channels of communication

1292/22*

17/12/2021

Aleksandr Mikhaylovich VAKULENKO

1980Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov

Taganrog

Interception of telephone communications

26/05/2021, 08/06/2021, 06/07/2021, 14/07/2021, 20/07/2021, 30/07/2021, 10/08/2021,19/08/2021, Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don

The applicant learnt of the interception from the materials prepared by the police on 10/09/2021 proposing to institute criminal proceedings on the basis of the information obtained as a result of the interception of telephone communications between the applicant and other alleged perpetrators; the criminal proceedings were instituted on 13/09/2021

the applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him, 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 in respect of interception of phone communications,

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - pre-trial detention since 24/09/2021 and pending on the date when the application was lodged, authorised by the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Rostov-on-Don and Rostov Regional Court: failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;

failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding

3168/22*

17/12/2021

Konstantin Nikolayevich MOGILEV

1987Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov

Taganrog

Interception of telephone communications

26/05/2021, 08/06/2021, 06/07/2021, 14/07/2021, 20/07/2021, 30/07/2021, 10/08/2021, 19/08/2021

Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don

The applicant learnt of the interception from the materials prepared by the police on 10/09/2021 proposing to institute criminal proceedings on the basis of the information obtained as a result of the interception of telephone communications between the applicant and other alleged perpetrators; the criminal proceedings were instituted on 13/09/2021

The applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him, 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 - in respect of interception of telephone communications,

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 24/08/2021, Aksayskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, 20/10/2021, Rostov Regional Court, 10-days administrative detention

7742/22*

16/01/2022

Viktoriya Andreyevna KONONENKO

1981Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov

Taganrog

Interception of telephone communications

26/05/2021, 08/06/2021, 06/07/2021, 14/07/2021, 20/07/2021, 30/07/2021, 10/08/2021, 19/08/2021

Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don

Lack of access to the judicial decision authorising interception of telephone communications. On 29/10/2021 the investigator informed the applicant that she can familiarise with the court decisions as soon as the preliminary investigation is over. Apparently, there are several court orders on the interception.

the applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him, the courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken on 13/10/2021 by the Rostov Regional Court, 5 days’ administrative detention,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of interception of telephone communications

8106/22*

16/01/2022

Roman Yuryevich TROTSENKO

1981Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov

Taganrog

Interception of telephone communications, collection of data from technical channels of communication

26/05/2021, 08/06/2021, 06/07/2021, 14/07/2021, 20/07/2021, 30/07/2021, 10/08/2021, 19/08/2021

Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don

Lack of access to the judicial decisions authorising interception of telephone communications. On 29/10/2021 the investigator informed the applicant that he can familiarise with the court orders as soon as the preliminary investigation is over. Apparently, there are several court orders on the interception.

The applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him, the courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken on 27/09/2021 by the Rostov Regional Court, 14 days’ administrative detention,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of interception of telephone communication and unlawful searches

15963/22*

25/02/2022

Pavel Pavlovich ZAYFERT

1981Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov

Taganrog

Interception of telephone communications

09/04/2020 the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don

The applicant was not a suspect at the moment of the interception authorisation. He was informed about the District Court’s decision on 07/10/2021 when he was questioned by an investigator. On 28/10/2021 the criminal proceedings were initiated against him. The applicant was not granted access to the District Court’s decision.

Lack of safeguards in case of accidental interception of a suspect’s communications with counsel (“quality of law”), the applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him/her

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of interception of telephone communications

38745/22

29/07/2022

Sergey Valentinovich BOSTYAKOV

1971Roman Mikhaylovich Kashirin

Pskov

Collection of data from technical channels of communication, interception of telephone communications, obtaining computer information, interception of telephone communications

28/02/2022, Pskov Regional Court;

The applicant learnt about secret surveillance after its results had been declassified by officials and enclosed in the criminal case file (decision of 31/05/2022).

The courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”

Art. 8 (1) - unlawful search - Search of the applicant’s home (allegedly in the ownership of his son); Date of the search authorisation and issuing authority: 31/05/2022, Pskov District Court of the Pskov Region;

Date of search: 27/05/2022;

Means of exhaustion: The applicant appealed against the court authorisation of the Pskov District Court which issued its decision on 31/05/2022 and the decision was upheld by the Pskov Regional Court on appeal on 13/07/2022.

Specific defects: no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search, particular circumstances: manner of the search, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: lawyer not allowed to assist the applicant during the search, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation