词条 | Zakharov v. Russia |
释义 |
|court= ECtHR |SubmitDate= |SubmitYear= |DecideDate= 4 December |DecideYear=2015 |FullName=Zakharov v. Russia |CelexID= |CaseType= |CaseNumber=47143/06 |ECLI=ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1204JUD004714306 |Chamber=Grand Chamber |Language= |Nationality= |Procedural= |Ruling= |JudgeRapporteur= |JudgePresident= Dean Spielmann |Judge1=Josep Casadevall |Judge6=Khanlar Hajiyev |Judge2= Guido Raimondi |Judge3= Ineta Ziemele |Judge4= Mark Villiger |Judge5=Luis López Guerra |Judge7=Angelika Nußberger |Judge8=Julia Laffranque |Judge9= Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos |Judge10= Erik Møse |Judge11= André Potocki |Judge12=Paul Lemmens |Judge13= Helena Jäderblom |Judge14= Faris Vehabović |Judge15=Ksenija Turković |Judge16=Dmitry Dedov |AdvocateGeneral= |InstrumentsCited= |LegislationAffecting= |Keywords= }} Zakharov v. Russia was a 2015 court case before the European Court of Human Rights involving Roman Zakharov and the Russian Federation. The Court ruled that Russia's legal provisions governing communications surveillance did not provide adequate safeguards against arbitrariness or abuse, and that therefore a violation took place of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (right to privacy). CaseIn 2003, editor Roman Zakharov brought judicial proceeding against three mobile network operators, claiming that there had been a violation of his right to the privacy of his communications. He maintained that Russia's SORM system (surveillance equipment installed at mobile phone companies) enables unrestricted interception of all telephone communications by the security services without prior judicial authorization.[1] The claim was rejected on the grounds that Zakharov did not prove to be a victim of such an interception himself. The rejection was upheld in 2006.[1][2] In 2006, Zakharov lodged a case with the ECtHR. He relied on Article 8 (right to privacy), arguing that Russia's national law permitted the security services to intercept, through technical means, any person's communications without obtaining prior judicial authorization. He further relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), complaining that he had no effective legal remedy at national level to challenge that legislation.[1] FindingsIn a unanimous Grand Chamber decision, the Court ruled that several aspects of Russian surveillance legislation were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights:[1][6]
Although Russian law generally provided for prior judicial authorization of communications surveillance, the Court concluded that in practice, this could be circumvented.[3][4] It also remarked that the proceedings indicate the existence of arbitrary and abusive surveillance practices.[9] Russia's SORM system was therefore found to be inconsistent with the requirements of Article 8.[1] The Court held that the existence of the contested legislation amounted to an interference with Zakharov's rights.[1] AftermathOn the same day of the ruling, the Russian government passed a law allowing it to overrule international court orders to "protect the interests of Russia"[5][6] if these orders are contradictory to the constitutional law.[7] Commentators have noted the decision for the fact that the applicant was able to challenge the surveillance regulatory framework without being required to prove that he had been spied upon himself.[8][9] The Court instead considered the legislation in abstracto as well as its application in practice.[10] The case was featured in Oxfords University Press blog in its 2015 "Top ten developments in international law" list.[11] See also
References1. ^1 2 3 4 5 {{Cite web|url=http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=003-5246347-6510358|title=HUDOC Press Release: Arbitrary and abusive secret surveillance of mobile telephone communications in Russia|date=2015-12-04|website=hudoc.echr.coe.int|access-date=2016-04-15}} 2. ^{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/24/strasbourg-court-human-rights-russia-eavesdropping-texts-emails-fsb-|title=Russia’s eavesdropping on phone calls examined by Strasbourg court|last=|first=|date=2014-09-24|newspaper=The Guardian|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|access-date=2016-04-15}} 3. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/echr-russian-federation-breaches-of-human-rights-in-surveillance-legislation/|title=ECHR, Russian Federation: Breaches of Human Rights in Surveillance Legislation – Global Legal Monitor|date=2016-03-02|website=www.loc.gov|access-date=2016-04-14}} 4. ^1 {{Cite web|url=http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-159324|title=CASE OF ROMAN ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 47143/06)|website=HUDOC – European Court of Human Rights|access-date=2016-04-14}} 5. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35007059|title=Russia passes law to overrule European human rights court - BBC News|website=BBC News|language=en-GB|access-date=2016-04-15}} 6. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.hrw.org/sq/node/284421|title=Dispatches: Russian Court Hopes to Thwart International Law Rulings|website=Human Rights Watch|access-date=2016-04-15}} 7. ^{{Cite web|url=http://www.ksrf.ru/ru/News/Pages/ViewItem.aspx?ParamId=3244|title=14 июля 2015 года Конституционный Суд РФ постановил, что решения ЕСПЧ должны исполняться с учетом верховенства Конституции РФ.|last=|first=|date=|website=www.ksrf.ru|language=ru-ru|trans-title=14 July 2015 Russian Constitutional Court held that orders issued by ECHR have to be executed regarding supremacy of Constitutional Law.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170421213717/http://www.ksrf.ru/ru/News/Pages/ViewItem.aspx?ParamId=3244|archive-date=21 Apr 2017|dead-url=|access-date=2017-06-24}} 8. ^{{Cite web|url=http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/12/european-court-of-human-rights-says-blanket-surveillance-is-a-violation/|title=European Court of Human Rights says blanket surveillance is a violation|website=Ars Technica UK|access-date=2016-04-15}} 9. ^1 {{Cite web|url=http://www.ejiltalk.org/blockbuster-strasbourg-judgment-on-surveillance-in-russia/|title=Blockbuster Strasbourg Judgment on Surveillance in Russia|last=Milanovic|first=Marko|date=2015-12-07|website=EJIL: Talk!|publisher=Blog of the European Journal of International Law|language=en-US|access-date=2016-04-15}} 10. ^{{Cite web|url=http://www.ejiltalk.org/blockbuster-strasbourg-judgment-on-surveillance-in-russia/|title=Blockbuster Strasbourg Judgment on Surveillance in Russia|last=Milanovic|first=Marko|date=2015-12-07|website=EJIL: Talk!|publisher=Blog of the European Journal of International Law|language=en-US|access-date=2016-04-15}} 11. ^{{Cite web|url=http://blog.oup.com/2016/01/top-ten-developments-international-law-2015/|title=Top ten developments in international law in 2015 – OUPblog|website=OUPblog|language=en-US|access-date=2016-04-15}} External links
7 : Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights|European Court of Human Rights cases involving Russia|Law enforcement in Russia|Surveillance|2015 in case law|2015 in Russia|European Court of Human Rights cases decided by the Grand Chamber |
随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。