{"id":1033,"date":"2015-12-04T08:53:31","date_gmt":"2015-12-04T08:53:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rcstaging.co.uk\/ehrac\/?post_type=case-studies&p=1033"},"modified":"2023-10-31T20:13:54","modified_gmt":"2023-10-31T20:13:54","slug":"zakharov-v-russia","status":"publish","type":"case-studies","link":"http:\/\/ehrac.org.uk\/en_gb\/key-ehrac-cases\/zakharov-v-russia\/","title":{"rendered":"Zakharov v Russia"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\r\n
\r\n\t
\r\n\t\t

Case No.\u00a047143\/06<\/strong>
\nJudgment date: 4 December\u00a02015<\/strong><\/p>\n

In December 2003, Roman Zakharov, journalist\u00a0and the chairperson of a branch of the\u00a0Glasnost Defense Foundation, brought judicial\u00a0proceedings against three mobile telephone\u00a0operators, complaining of the violation of\u00a0his right to privacy of his telephone communications.\u00a0He claimed that Russian law\u00a0had required the mobile network operators\u00a0to install equipment which had permitted\u00a0the interception of all telephone communications\u00a0by the Federal Security Service without\u00a0judicial authorisation.<\/p>\n

The domestic courts dismissed his claims,\u00a0finding that he had not proved that his telephone\u00a0communications had been intercepted\u00a0or that the mobile network operators had\u00a0transmitted, or permitted the transmission\u00a0of, protected information. Domestically, the\u00a0courts held that the mere existence of equipment\u00a0enabling law-enforcement agencies to\u00a0perform operational-search activities did not\u00a0constitute an interference with the right to\u00a0privacy of his communications. In his ECtHR\u00a0application, the applicant argued violations of\u00a0the right to respect for his private and family\u00a0life (Art. 8 ECHR) and to an effective remedy\u00a0(Art. 13 ECHR).<\/p>\n

You can read this case summary in full in the\u00a0Summer 2015 Bulletin<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

Links<\/h3>\n