ROMAN ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
3
8. The applicant is the editor-in-chief of a publishing company and of an
aviation magazine. He is also the chairperson of the St Petersburg branch of
the Glasnost Defence Foundation, a non-governmental organisation (NGO)
monitoring the state of media freedom in the Russian regions, which
promotes the independence of the regional mass media, freedom of speech
and respect for journalists’ rights, and provides legal support, including
through litigation, to journalists.
9. He subscribed to the services of several mobile-network operators.
10. On 23 December 2003 he brought judicial proceedings against three
mobile-network operators, claiming that there had been an interference with
his right to the privacy of his telephone communications. He claimed that
pursuant to Order no. 70 (see paragraphs 115-22 below) of the State
Committee for Communications and Information Technologies (the
predecessor to the Ministry of Communications and Information
Technologies – “the Ministry of Communications”), the mobile-network
operators had installed equipment which permitted the Federal Security
Service (FSB) to intercept all telephone communications without prior
judicial authorisation. The applicant argued that Order no. 70, which had
never been published, unduly restricted his right to privacy. He asked the
court to issue an injunction ordering the removal of the equipment installed
pursuant to Order no. 70, and to ensure that access to mobile-telephone
communications was given to authorised persons only. The Ministry of
Communications and the St Petersburg and Leningrad Region Department
of the FSB were joined as a third party to the proceedings.
11. On 5 December 2005 the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of
St Petersburg dismissed the applicant’s claims. It found that the applicant
had not proved that the mobile-network operators had transmitted any
protected information to unauthorised persons or permitted the unrestricted
or unauthorised interception of communications. The equipment to which
he referred had been installed to enable law-enforcement agencies to
conduct operational-search activities in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by law. The installation of such equipment had not in itself
interfered with the privacy of the applicant’s communications. The applicant
had failed to demonstrate any facts which would warrant a finding that his
right to the privacy of his telephone communications had been violated.
12. The applicant appealed. He claimed, in particular, that the District
Court had refused to accept several documents in evidence. Those
documents had included two judicial orders retrospectively authorising the
interception of mobile-telephone communications and an addendum to the
standard service-provider agreement issued by one of the mobile-network
operators. One of the judicial orders in question, issued on 8 October 2002,
authorised the interception of several people’s mobile-telephone
communications during the periods from 1 to 5 April, 19 to 23 June,
30 June to 4 July and 16 to 20 October 2001. The other judicial order,