34
ROMAN ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
148. The applicant complained that the system of covert interception of
mobile-telephone communications in Russia did not comply with the
requirements of Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and
his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right
except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society
in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,
or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
A. Admissibility
149. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be
a victim of the alleged violation of his right to respect for his private life or
correspondence (see paragraphs 152-57 below). Moreover, he had not
exhausted domestic remedies (see paragraphs 219-26 below).
150. The Court considers that the Government’s objections are so
closely linked to the substance of the applicant’s complaint that they must
be joined to the merits.
151. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It is
not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
B. Merits
1. The applicant’s victim status and the existence of an “interference”
(a) The parties’ submissions
(i) The Government
152. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be
a victim of the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention and that
there had been no interference with his rights. He had not complained that
his communications had been intercepted. The gist of his complaint before
the domestic courts and the Court was that communications service
providers had installed special equipment enabling the authorities to
perform operational-search activities. In the Government’s opinion, the case
of Orange Slovensko, a. s. v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 43983/02, 24 October