64
ROMAN ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
no more. The official responsible for ensuring that the data are securely
stored and inaccessible to those without the necessary security clearance is
clearly defined (see paragraphs 51-57 above). Domestic law also sets out the
conditions and procedures for communicating intercepted data containing
information about a criminal offence to the prosecuting authorities. It
describes, in particular, the requirements for their secure storage and the
conditions for their use as evidence in criminal proceedings (see
paragraphs 58-64 above). The Court is satisfied that Russian law contains
clear rules governing the storage, use and communication of intercepted
data, making it possible to minimise the risk of unauthorised access or
disclosure (see, for similar reasoning, Kennedy, cited above, §§ 162-63).
254. As far as the destruction of intercept material is concerned,
domestic law provides that it must be destroyed after six months of storage
if the person concerned has not been charged with a criminal offence. If the
person has been charged with a criminal offence, the trial judge must make
a decision, at the end of the criminal proceedings, on the further storage and
destruction of the intercept material used in evidence (see paragraphs 65-66
above).
255. As regards the cases where the person concerned has not been
charged with a criminal offence, the Court is not convinced by the
applicant’s argument that Russian law permits storage of the intercept
material beyond the statutory time-limit (see paragraph 188 above). It
appears that the provision referred to by the applicant does not apply to the
specific case of storage of data collected as a result of interception of
communications. The Court considers the six-month storage time-limit set
out in Russian law for such data reasonable. At the same time, it deplores
the lack of a requirement to destroy immediately any data that are not
relevant to the purpose for which they have been obtained (compare Klass
and Others, cited above, § 52, and Kennedy, cited above, § 162). The
automatic storage for six months of clearly irrelevant data cannot be
considered justified under Article 8.
256. Furthermore, as regards the cases where the person has been
charged with a criminal offence, the Court notes with concern that Russian
law allows unlimited discretion to the trial judge to store or to destroy the
data used in evidence after the end of the trial (see paragraph 66 above).
Russian law does not give citizens any indication as to the circumstances in
which the intercept material may be stored after the end of the trial. The
Court therefore considers that the domestic law is not sufficiently clear on
this point.