| Applicant name | TREVOGIN AND OTHERS |
| Applicant type | Prisoner |
| Number of applicants | 11 |
| Country | Russia |
| Application no. | 61147/13 16492/18 48812/19 13490/20 50256/21 1292/22 3168/22 7742/22 8106/22 15963/22 38745/22 |
| Date | 11/01/2024 |
| Judges | María Elósegui, President, Mattias Guyomar, Kateřina Šimáčková |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Mini-judgment |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy |
| Keywords | |
| Facts of the case | 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.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. Art. 8 (1) – unlawful search – Search of the applicant’s home; 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 of Pskov Region of 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 |
| Analysis | |
| Other Article violation? | Yes, 3, 5, 6 and 13 |
| Damage awarded | 83750 |
| Documents | Judgment |