CASE OF AKHLYUSTIN v. RUSSIA
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova
5. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Ivanovo. 6. At the relevant time the applicant was a member of the Ivanovo Region electoral commission. 7. On 23 October 2003 a deputy head of the Ivanovo Region Department of Internal Affairs ordered audio-visual “surveillance” (“наблюдение”) of the applicant’s office. The parties did not submit a copy of that decision. 8. The surveillance was carried out from 27 October to 5 November 2003 by means of a hidden camera. 9. The applicant was subsequently charged with abuse of power, an offence under Article 285 of the Criminal Code. While studying the criminal case file he discovered that it contained video recordings of him talking on the telephone in his office. 10. At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty. He claimed, in particular, that the video recordings were inadmissible as evidence as they had been obtained unlawfully without prior judicial authorisation. He also challenged the authenticity of the recordings. 11. On 27 September 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo convicted the applicant of abuse of power and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years. The court relied on statements by several witnesses, physical evidence, expert reports and the video recordings of the applicant’s telephone conversations. It found that the video recordings were authentic and that they had been obtained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. 12. The applicant appealed. He reiterated, in particular, his argument that the video recordings were inadmissible as evidence. 13. On 12 November 2004 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. The court held that the District Court had correctly declared the video recordings admissible as evidence because they had been obtained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.