38
ROMAN ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
Ministry of Communications requiring communications providers to install
equipment enabling the authorities to perform operational-search activities
were not subject to judicial review in commercial courts. The domestic
proceedings brought by the applicant had shown that Order no. 70 could not
be effectively challenged before the Russian courts. Further, as far as the
OSAA was concerned, the Constitutional Court had already examined its
constitutionality on a number of occasions and had found that it was
compatible with the Constitution. Finally, as regards the possibility of
challenging individual surveillance measures, the applicant submitted that
the person concerned was not notified of the interception, unless the
intercepted material had been used as evidence in criminal proceedings
against him. In the absence of notification, the domestic remedies were
ineffective (see also paragraph 217 below).
162. As to his personal situation, the applicant submitted that he was a
journalist and the chairperson of the St Petersburg branch of the Glasnost
Defence Foundation, which monitored the state of media freedom and
provided legal support to journalists whose professional rights had been
violated (see paragraph 8 above). His communications were therefore at an
increased risk of being intercepted. The applicant referred in that connection
to the fundamental importance of protecting journalists’ sources,
emphasised by the Grand Chamber judgment in Sanoma Uitgevers B.V.
v. the Netherlands ([GC], no. 38224/03, § 50, 14 September 2010).
(b) The Court’s assessment
163. The Court observes that the applicant in the present case claims that
there has been an interference with his rights as a result of the mere
existence of legislation permitting covert interception of mobile-telephone
communications and a risk of being subjected to interception measures,
rather than as a result of any specific interception measures applied to him.
(i) Summary of the Court’s case-law
164. The Court has consistently held in its case-law that the Convention
does not provide for the institution of an actio popularis and that its task is
not normally to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to
determine whether the manner in which they were applied to, or affected,
the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see, among other
authorities, N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 56, ECHR 2002-X; Krone
Verlag GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria (no. 4), no. 72331/01, § 26, 9 November
2006; and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.
Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 101, ECHR 2014). Accordingly, in order to
be able to lodge an application in accordance with Article 34, an individual
must be able to show that he was “directly affected” by the measure
complained of. This is indispensable for putting the protection mechanism
of the Convention into motion, although this criterion is not to be applied in