ROMAN ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
67
interception request is rejected only if it is not signed by a competent
person, contains no reference to the offence in connection with which
interception is to be ordered, or concerns a criminal offence in respect of
which interception is not permitted under domestic law (see paragraph 193
above). Thus, the analytical notes issued by District Courts, taken together
with the statistical information for the period from 2009-13 provided by the
applicant (see paragraph 194 above), indicate that in their everyday practice
Russian courts do not verify whether there is a “reasonable suspicion”
against the person concerned and do not apply the “necessity” and
“proportionality” test.
264. Lastly, as regards the content of the interception authorisation, it
must clearly identify a specific person to be placed under surveillance or a
single set of premises as the premises in respect of which the authorisation
is ordered. Such identification may be made by names, addresses, telephone
numbers or other relevant information (see Klass and Others, cited above,
§ 51; Liberty and Others, cited above, §§ 64-65; Dumitru Popescu, cited
above, § 78; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and
Ekimdzhiev, cited above, § 80; and Kennedy, cited above, § 160).
265. The Court observes that the CCrP requires that a request for
interception authorisation must clearly mention a specific person whose
communications are to be intercepted, as well as the duration of the
interception measure (see paragraph 46 above). By contrast, the OSAA does
not contain any requirements either with regard to the content of the request
for interception or to the content of the interception authorisation. As a
result, courts sometimes grant interception authorisations which do not
mention a specific person or telephone number to be tapped, but authorise
interception of all telephone communications in the area where a criminal
offence has been committed. Some authorisations do not mention the
duration for which interception is authorised (see paragraph 193 above).
The Court considers that such authorisations, which are not clearly
prohibited by the OSAA, grant a very wide discretion to the
law-enforcement authorities as to which communications to intercept, and
for how long.
266. The Court further notes that in urgent cases it is possible to
intercept communications without prior judicial authorisation for up to
forty-eight hours. A judge must be informed of any such case within
twenty-four hours from the commencement of the interception. If no
judicial authorisation has been issued within forty-eight hours, the
interception must be stopped immediately (see paragraph 35 above). The
Court has already examined the “urgency” procedure provided for in
Bulgarian law and found that it was compatible with the Convention (see
Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev,
cited above, §§ 16 and 82). However, in contrast to the Bulgarian provision,
the Russian “urgent procedure” does not provide for sufficient safeguards to