KRASHENINNIKOV proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 48154/18
Yegor Borisovich KRASHENINNIKOV
against Russia

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President,

Andreas Zünd,

Frédéric Krenc, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 October 2018,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Mr A. Dolgopolov, a lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention concerning the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

Complaints under Article 8 of the Convention (secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings)

Having examined the material submitted, the Court considers it appropriate first to ascertain whether, in the present case, the applicant complied with the six months’ rule (in force at the relevant time – see Saakashivili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 6232/20 and 22394/20, § 46, 1 March 2022).

In this connection, the Court reiterates that normally, the six-month period runs from the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies. However, in the absence of domestic remedies the six-month period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of. Special considerations could apply in exceptional cases, where an applicant first avails himself of a remedy and only at a later stage becomes aware, or should have become aware, of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective. In such a case the Court considers that it may be appropriate for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 to take the start of the six-month period from the date when the applicant first became or ought to have become aware of those circumstances (see, Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 260, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

The Court also observes that it has already established that raising an issue of covert surveillance in the criminal proceedings in Russia cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in respect of a complaint under Article 8 (see Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, §§ 23-36, 7 November 2017).

Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court takes into account that the applicant learnt about the covert surveillance in the course of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court accepts that it was reasonable for the applicant, in the absence of any information to the contrary, to try to bring his grievances to the attention of the domestic courts by raising the issue at the trial. The Court discerns nothing in the parties’ submissions to suggest that the applicant was aware, or should have become aware, of the futility of such a course of action before the publication of the judgment in the case of Konstantin Moskalev, cited above, on 7 November 2017.

However, regard being had to the above, the Court considers that at least as of 7 November 2017 the applicant should have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the remedy he resorted it. Accordingly, it was incumbent on him to introduce his complaints within six months after that date, that is no later than 7 May 2018. By having lodged his application in October 2018, the applicant failed to comply with the six months’ rule.

Accordingly, these complaints have been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 27 October 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention

(secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings)