Blog post by Maxim Petlin, 28.10.2022

Photo: Maxim Petlin / Photo by the Yabloko Press Service

Yesterday, the European Court of Human Rights satisfied my complaint against the Russian Federation and declared the Resolution of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dated 16.11.2010 unlawful and violating Article 8 of the European Convention. In November 2010, the regional court, on the basis of the submission of the Federal Security Service for the Sverdlovsk region, considered it possible to deprive me of a number of constitutional rights, including the inviolability of my home, the secrecy of telephone conversations and correspondence, and also allowed Federal Security Service officers to conduct surveillance on me in order to collect information and subsequently initiate a criminal case.

The basis for such radical measures were my political activities: speaking at meetings and organising rallies, they specially emphasised my stance against the expansion of the powers of the Federal Security Service and against the “Putin – Medvedev regime”, the court saw the signs of a crime in all this, under Article 280 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Extremism”).

It should be noted that, having immersed into my life and explored it, the employees of the Federal Security Service already in February 2011, that is, three months later, found my activity criminal and initiated a criminal case, however, this time under Article 163 of the Criminal Code (“Extortion”).

After six months of investigation, after deciphering 16 hours of audio and video recordings and obtaining the opinion of an expert philologist, which, to the surprise of the Investigative Committee, ran that there were no threats or demands from me to the “victims”, which should be the main signs of extortion, the investigator of the Investigative Committee formulated a new accusation – this time an attempt to receive a bribe, Article 290 of the Criminal Code.

However, these charges, already within the framework of the trial in the next year, 2012, had to be abandoned by the public prosecutor who represented the state prosecution, and this happened after none of the “victims” could formulate why they had been going to give me a bribe.

As a result, the public prosecutor, after a two-week pause, remembered what the Federal Security Service officers had come with, and re-charged me under Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, ignoring the opinion of the philologist in the case. By the way, we were not able to call the expert philologist to court, the judge considered it unnecessary, since this, apparently, could demonstrate the absurdity of the charges and two years of trial and investigation, and, possibly, could prevent him from passing a guilty verdict.

Yesterday, the ECHR issued a decision that means little in the current situation, because it is obvious to me that it will not be executed and my sentence will not be canceled, but in the future this should be very important for our country. I hope that after many years it will be clearly established by law in New Russia, including on the basis of this decision, that citizens cannot be deprived of their constitutional rights for their political activities (including opposition activities): wiretapping, surveillance, secret entry into homes and other must be invalid.

Finally, a few key quotes from the ECHR decision

.. The Court considers that in the present case (set out in the attached table) the courts did not test for “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply “necessity under the criteria of a democratic society” in examining the applicants’ complaints.

… These complaints are, therefore, admissible and reveal a violation of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.

… Mr Petlin (application no. 14829/12), lodged an application under Article 13 of the Convention with the regard to the relevant well-established case-law of the Court. This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded with regard to the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, it must be recognised as admissible. Having examined all the materials, the Court concludes that the complaint also reveals a violation of the Convention in the light of its well-established case law (see, inter alia, Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, of 7 November 2017, on the lack of effective remedies for complaints of covert surveillance).

Maxim Petlin

is a member of the Yabloko Bureau,

Chairman of the Sverdlovsk branch of Yabloko