THIRD SECTION

CASE OF IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 20202/15 and 12 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

6 February 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ivanov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

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.

THE LAW

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. Jurisdiction

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, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention

7.  The applicants complained principally of the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings. Ms Novozhilova (application no. 56469/15) also alleged that the regional tax authorities had stored the recording of her telephone communications. The applicants relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention.

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 “in accordance with law”, pursued one or more legitimate aim or aims as defined in the second paragraph and was “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve those aims (see, among other authorities, Goranova‑Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 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 “necessity in a democratic society” of the contested surveillance measures and to furnish sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, §§ 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, §§ 93‑100, 7 November 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 “reasonable suspicion” against him and to apply the “necessity in a democratic society” and “proportionality” tests).

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 8 of the Convention (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 73‑83, 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 “necessity in a democratic society” reviewed and amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Šantare and Labazņikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 60-62, 31 March 2016; Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 80-84, 20 December 2016; and Zubkov and Others, cited above, §§ 122-32).

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, §§ 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., §107 in fine).

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’ 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 “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test” when examining the applicants’ 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 “necessity in a democratic society”, reviewed by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles of Article 8 of the Convention.

12.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

13.  In view of the above findings, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the remainder of Ms Novozhilova’s complaints.

4. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

14.  Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (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-established case law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103‑08 and 154‑58, 22 May 2012, regarding conditions of detention during transport and speediness of review of pre-trial detention; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 143-56, 9 April 2019, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about conditions of detention during transport; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings; and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, §§ 23-36, 7 November 2017, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about the secret surveillance).

5. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.  As to application no. 11430/18, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 311, ECHR 2015, which imposed on the respondent State a legal obligation, under Article 46 of the Convention, to implement, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, such measures as they consider appropriate to secure the right of the applicants and other persons in their position to respect of their private life), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself a sufficient just satisfaction. The Court also considers that the finding of a violation in application no. 36818/17 will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction (see, for similar reasoning, Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022). As to the remainder of the applications, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, 7 November 2017, Zubkov and Others, cited above, Dudchenko, cited above, Moskalev v. Russia, no. 44045/05, 7 November 2017 and Konstantin Moskalev, also cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. Declares the applications admissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings and that it is not necessary to examine separately the remainder of Ms Novozhilova’s complaints (application no. 56469/15);
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);
6. Holds that a finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in applications nos. 11430/18 and 36818/17;
7. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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;

(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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 February 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 of the Convention

(secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.