ROMAN ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
75
worth noting in this connection that in order to be entitled to lodge such a
request the person must be in possession of the facts of the operationalsearch measures to which he was subjected. It follows that access to the
information is conditional on the person’s ability to prove that his
communications were intercepted. Furthermore, the interception subject is
not entitled to obtain access to documents relating to interception of his
communications; he is at best entitled to receive “information” about the
collected data. Such information is provided only in very limited
circumstances, namely if the person’s guilt has not been proved in
accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, that is, he has not been
charged or the charges have been dropped on the ground that the alleged
offence was not committed or that one or more elements of a criminal
offence were missing. It is also significant that only information that does
not contain State secrets may be disclosed to the interception subject and
that under Russian law information about the facilities used in operationalsearch activities, the methods employed, the officials involved and the data
collected constitutes a State secret (see paragraph 52 above). In view of the
above features of Russian law, the possibility of obtaining information
about interceptions appears to be ineffective.
291. The Court will bear the above factors – the absence of notification
and the lack of an effective possibility of requesting and obtaining
information about interceptions from the authorities – in mind when
assessing the effectiveness of remedies available under Russian law.
292. Russian law provides that a person claiming that his rights have
been or are being violated by a State official performing operational-search
activities may complain to the official’s superior, a prosecutor or a court
(see paragraph 83 above). The Court reiterates that a hierarchical appeal to a
direct supervisor of the authority whose actions are being challenged does
not meet the requisite standards of independence needed to constitute
sufficient protection against the abuse of authority (see, for similar
reasoning, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, §§ 45-47, ECHR
2000-V; Dumitru Popescu, cited above, § 72; and Avanesyan, cited above, §
32). Prosecutors also lack independence and have a limited scope of review,
as demonstrated above (see paragraphs 277-85 above). It remains to be
ascertained whether a complaint to a court may be regarded as an effective
remedy.
293. There are four judicial procedures which, according to the
Government, may be used by a person wishing to complain of the
interception of his communications: an appeal, a cassation appeal or a
supervisory-review complaint against the judicial decision authorising
interception of communications; a judicial-review complaint under
Article 125 of the CCrP; a judicial-review complaint under the Judicial
Review Act and Chapter 25 of the CCP; and a civil tort claim under Article
1069 of the Civil Code. The Court will examine them in turn.