No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Zakharov v. Russia (Eur. Ct. H.R.)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
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
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016
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.