Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T05:36:21.155Z 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
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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

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.