5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Omsk. 6.  The applicant was deputy head of the Omsk Regional Department for the Execution of Sentences. 7.  On 22 August 2002 the Novosibirsk Regional Court authorised for 180 days the interception and recording of the applicant’s telephone conversations, interception of postal communications and the collection of data from technical channels of communication. The surveillance authorisation read in its entirety as follows:
“Operational-search measures carried out with the aim of combatting corruption within State authorities have revealed indications of a systematic bribery scheme operated by certain prison officials in the Omsk region.
According to operative information, there are good reasons to suspect [the applicant], deputy head of the Omsk Regional Department for the Execution of Sentences, of arranging for, and systematically receiving, unlawful payments from confidants of the convicts serving their sentences in Omsk penal institutions in exchange for granting them various privileges (such as a prison leave, improved conditions of detention or transfer to another penal institution within the Omsk region, which was for some reason preferred by the convict in question).
Given that [the applicant’s] actions contain elements of criminal offences under Article 290 § 4 of the Criminal Code [bribe-taking], classified as a serious offence, and under Article 285 § 1 of the Criminal Code [abuse of power], it is necessary to perform a combination of operational-search measures (interception and recording of telephone conversations, monitoring of correspondence and collection of data from technical channels of communication) in order to collect evidence of his criminal activities, and to receive information about the bribe‑givers and the payment mechanisms used.” 8.  On 18 February 2003 the Novosibirsk Regional Court authorised “audio surveillance” of the applicant’s office for 180 days. The Government did not submit a copy of that decision. 9.  Charges of bribe-taking or abuse of power have never been brought against the applicant. 10.  In March 2003 the applicant was charged with disclosure of State secrets, an offence under Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code, for informing a convict’s relative that the convict was under covert surveillance. 11.  When studying the criminal case file, the applicant learnt for the first time that his telephone conversations had been recorded and his other communications monitored. He also learnt that a recording of his telephone conversation with Ms L., a sister of a convict detained in a penal institution under his supervision, formed the basis for the charge of disclosure of State secrets. During the conversation, which had taken place on 17 October 2002, the applicant had warned Ms L. that her relative was under covert surveillance and that there were listening devices hidden in his cell. 12.  At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty. He claimed, in particular, that the recording of his telephone conversation with Ms L. was inadmissible as evidence as it had been obtained unlawfully. 13.  On 16 February 2005 the Omsk Regional Court found the applicant guilty of disclosure of State secrets, an offence under Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code. It relied on the recording of the applicant’s telephone conversation with Ms L., among other evidence. It found that the recording was admissible as evidence as it had been obtained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. In particular, the interception of the applicant’s telephone conversations had been authorised by a court on the grounds that he was suspected of the serious criminal offence of bribe‑taking. The applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years. 14.  In his appeal submissions the applicant complained, in particular, of a violation of his right to respect for his private life. He argued that the interception of his communications had been unlawful and unjustified, and that the recording of his conversation with Ms L. was inadmissible as evidence. 15.  On 21 June 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction on appeal. It noted that all the evidence had been collected in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and was admissible.