Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:22:50.155Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Zakharov v. Russia (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lorna Woods
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Zakharov v. Russia held that the Russian system of surveillance constituted a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This decision is not the first judgment concerning surveillance, but it is of note because it is a Grand Chamber judgment in which the ECtHR drew together strands of its existing case law. It comes at a time when national systems of surveillance are the subject of much scrutiny: further cases are pending before the ECtHR.

Type
International Legal Materials
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 207 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the European Court of Human Rights website (visited March 14, 2016), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=001-159324#{“itemid”:[“001-159324”]}.

1 Zakharov v. Russia, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2015), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i_001-159324.

2 See Big Brother Watch v. U.K. (application no 58170/13), Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Ross v. U.K. (application no. 62322/ 14), and Tretter v. Austria (application no. 3599/10), for cases on surveillance that are pending before the ECtHR.

3 Klass v. Germany, App. No. 5029/71, 2 Eur. H.R. Rep. 214 (1978).

4 Zakharov, supra note 1, ¶¶ 167–68.

5 Kennedy v. United Kingdom, 2010 Eur. Ct. H.R. 682.

6 Zakharov, supra note 1, ¶ 169.

7 Id. ¶ 171.

8 Id. ¶ 227.

9 Id. ¶ 229.

10 Id. ¶ 231.

11 Id. ¶ 242.

12 Id. ¶ 237.

13 Id. ¶ 232.

14 Id. ¶ 233.

15 Id. ¶ 302.

16 Esbester v. United Kingdom, 1993 Eur. Ct. H.R. 64; see also Halford v. United Kingdom, 1997-III Eur. Ct. H.R. 32, ¶ 17.

17 Zakharov, supra note 1, Concurring Opinion of Judge Dedov, ¶ 3.

18 Note that in Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2016, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i_001-160020 the ECtHR treated this as a question of admissibility, but found the matter admissible.

19 Id. ¶ 248.

20 Szabó and Vissy, supra note 18.

21 Id. Concurring Opinion, ¶ 20.

22 Zakharov, supra note 1, ¶ 269.

23 Id. ¶ 268.