ROMAN ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
25
discontinue the interception, intercept a subscriber’s ongoing
communication, and submit specified information about a subscriber
(paragraph 3.1.2 of Addendum no. 3).
122. The remote terminal receives the following automatic notifications
about the interception subjects: SMS sent or received by the interception
subject, including their contents; a number being dialled; a connection being
established; a connection being interrupted; use of supplementary services;
and a change in the subject’s connection status or location (paragraph 3.1.4
of Addendum no. 3).
(b) Order no. 130
123. Order no. 130 on the installation procedures for technical facilities
enabling the conduct of operational-search activities, issued by the Ministry
of Communications on 25 July 2000, stipulated that communications
service providers had to install equipment which met the technical
requirements laid down in Order no. 70. The installation procedure and
schedule had to be approved by the FSB (paragraph 1.4).
124. Communications service providers had to take measures to protect
information regarding the methods and tactics employed in operationalsearch activities (paragraph 2.4)
125. Communications service providers had to ensure that any
interception of communications or access to communications data was
granted only pursuant to a court order and in accordance with the procedure
established by the OSAA (paragraph 2.5).
126. Communications service providers did not have to be informed of
interceptions in respect of their subscribers. Nor did they have to be
provided with judicial orders authorising interceptions (paragraph 2.6).
127. Interceptions were carried out by the staff and technical facilities of
the FSB and the agencies of the Ministry of the Interior (paragraph 2.7).
128. Paragraphs 1.4 and 2.6 of Order no. 130 were challenged by a
Mr N. before the Supreme Court. Mr N. argued that the reference to Order
no. 70 contained in paragraph 1.4 was unlawful, as Order no. 70 had not
been published and was invalid. As to paragraph 2.6, it was incompatible
with the Communications Act, which provided that communications service
providers had an obligation to ensure the privacy of communications. On
25 September 2000 the Supreme Court found that the reference to Order
no. 70 in paragraph 1.4 was lawful, as Order no. 70 was technical in nature
and was therefore not subject to publication in a generally accessible official
publication. It had therefore been published only in a specialised magazine.
As to paragraph 2.6, the Supreme Court considered that it could be
interpreted as requiring communications service providers to grant lawenforcement agencies access to information about subscribers without
judicial authorisation. Such a requirement was, however, incompatible with