Violation of privacy: elements and types of this crime Criminal lawyer

New edition of Art. 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

1. Illegal collection or dissemination of information about the private life of a person, constituting his personal or family secret, without his consent, or dissemination of this information in a public speech, publicly displayed work or the media -

shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to two hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to eighteen months, or by compulsory labor for a term of up to three hundred sixty hours, or by corrective labor for a term of up to one year, or by forced labor for a term of up to two years. with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it, or arrest for a term of up to four months, or imprisonment for a term of up to two years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years .

2. The same acts committed by a person using his official position, -

shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of one to two years, or by deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of two to five years, or by forced labor. for a term of up to four years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to five years or without it, or arrest for a term of up to six months, or imprisonment for a term of up to four years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to five years.

3. Illegal dissemination in a public speech, publicly displayed work, mass media or information and telecommunication networks of information indicating the identity of a minor victim under sixteen years of age in a criminal case, or information containing a description of the physical or physical persons received by him in connection with the crime moral suffering, resulting in harm to the health of a minor, or mental disorder of a minor, or other grave consequences -

shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred fifty thousand to three hundred fifty thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of eighteen months to three years, or by deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of three to five years, or forced labor for a term of up to five years with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to six years, or arrest for a term of up to six months, or imprisonment for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities certain activities for a period of up to six years.

Concept (what article is in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation?)

The issue of violating the boundaries of private life is regulated by Article 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Types of privacy violations:

if someone illegally obtains and then distributes information related to someone’s private life;
if someone's personal secret or information is made public through a public speech, work or through the media.

A person has the right to protect his honor and good name, the secret of adoption, the secret of confession, medical confidentiality, and the secret of communication. Also - the right to control information about yourself .

On the qualification of crimes and judicial practice

Crimes provided for in Art. Art. 137 and 138 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, belong to the categories of minor and moderate severity. The use of these crimes does not prevent the qualification of actions in conjunction with other articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. For example, obtaining or using data about a person’s private life may be preparation for or a means of committing another crime, in particular extortion. Often, the use of special technical means during the collection of information about personal or family life is classified as a computer crime, for example, Art. 272 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (illegal access to computer information with its blocking, modification or copying). If, in turn, we are talking about disclosing the secret of adoption, then liability may arise under Art. 155 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Abuse of powers or their excess by officials may constitute a crime in office. These and other nuances are very important for correct qualification. Moreover, in the aggregate they may face a much greater punishment than under Art. 137 or 138 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In most cases, if the offense is classified under several articles, it is quite possible to receive imprisonment. Whereas if it is only a violation of privacy, it is more likely to receive a suspended sentence or a non-custodial sentence.

In investigative and judicial practice, crimes provided for in Art. 137 or 138 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are quite rare. At least not in combination with other crimes. Recently, we are increasingly talking about the dissemination of data on the Internet, for example, intimate photos. In practice, there are also sentences for installing wiretapping, hidden video cameras, hacking personal accounts, and gaining access to electronic correspondence. At the everyday level, crimes are most often committed out of revenge, out of selfish motives (blackmail, extortion), out of a desire to harm another person or test one’s hacking abilities.

The law on operational intelligence allows operational officers to collect and use information about a person’s private life in order to identify, suppress, and record crimes. As a rule, the information received forms the basis for initiating a criminal case or obtaining evidence on it. Often, Russian courts recognize such events and the evidence obtained as legal and admissible, if there were no obvious violations of the law. In other cases, the question of initiating a criminal case may be raised against the employees themselves.

Corpus delicti

The objective side of the crime consists of:

unlawful collection and public disclosure of personal information about a person through a speech, publication of a work or transmission to the media;
damage caused by the described actions to the interests and rights of the citizen;
the causal connection between the act and the consequences it entailed.

The subjective side of the crime consists of the deliberate actions of a person who invades someone else’s personal life. A mandatory criterion is the personal or selfish interest of the violator.

That is, the culprit deliberately finds out and discloses personal information, realizing that this is illegal and will harm the person about whom he is “talking.”

Moreover, if an attacker uses his official position , this act is already more dangerous than one committed without the use of special capabilities.

The object of the crime is a system of social relations that ensures the safety of a person’s private life and protects it from someone else’s intrusion .

The right to this type of protection is enshrined in the Basic Law of the Russian Federation (Article 23 of the Constitution); Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 9 of the Russian Declaration of Rights and Freedoms of Man and Citizen.

The subject of this crime can only be a person. That is, an individual . If a crime is committed on behalf of a legal entity, the latter cannot be recognized as the subject of the crime.

The subject of the crime is information that relates to a person’s personal or family secret . That is, information about his personality, intimate relationships, connections, income, preferences, relationships within the family, state of health, etc.

The Supreme Court will adjust the practice of bringing to justice for violation of constitutional rights and freedoms

On November 27, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered a draft resolution (link to file), which clarifies issues of judicial practice in cases of crimes against the constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen. The document was prepared in order to ensure uniformity in the application by courts of legislation on liability for crimes under Art. 137, 138, 138.1, 139, 144.1, 145 and 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Based on the results of the review, the document was sent for revision.

According to the head of the constitutional practice of Asnis and Partners JSC Dmitry Kravchenko, the need for clarification by the Supreme Court on a number of points - in particular, on the conditions for bringing to justice for the illegal circulation of special equipment for secretly obtaining information - is long overdue.

Alexander Brester, a member of the Commission for the Protection of the Rights of Lawyers of the Krasnoyarsk Territory Administration, noted that crimes against the constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen are rare, they are not even highlighted in judicial statistics at the federal level, and there is little practice of the Supreme Court on them. The expert believes that, most likely, the emergence of this project is due to the massive development of technology, in connection with which it was necessary to clarify some concepts, and it is most convenient to do this in the format of explanations of the Plenum of the Armed Forces.

Privacy

In paragraph 1 of the draft, the Supreme Court draws the attention of the courts to the fact that, in accordance with parts 1 and 2 of Art. 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, criminal liability arises for the collection and dissemination of information about the private life of a person, constituting a personal or family secret, in the absence of his consent or legal grounds for receiving, using and providing such information.

Information constituting a personal or family secret, in accordance with clause 2, means information about the area of life activity of a person or members of his family, which is not subject to control by society and the state, if it is not illegal in nature, is not publicly available and is not made public by them. citizen. This category also includes information provided to the lawyer that is necessary to provide professional legal assistance. The Supreme Court draws attention to the fact that in order to have a crime under Art. 137 of the Criminal Code, the classification of such information as a personal or family secret must be covered by the intent of the guilty person.

Commenting on this clarification, Dmitry Dyadkin, senior partner at Defenden Justicio, drew attention to the fact that the Plenum of the Supreme Court, in terms of defining the concept of information constituting a personal or family secret, turned to the definition developed by the Constitutional Court and reflected in a number of its acts (definitions dated June 9, 2005 No. 248-O; dated January 26, 2010 No. 158-O-O and dated May 27, 2010 No. 644-O-O). According to the lawyer, this is a “good” practice, since it creates uniformity and stability in law enforcement.

Clause 3 of the draft clarification notes that collecting information about private life implies obtaining it in any way - personal observation, wiretapping, interviewing other persons, including through audio, video and photographic recording, copying documents, as well as by kidnapping or other acquisition.

Paragraph 4 emphasizes that when considering criminal cases of crimes under Art. 138 of the Criminal Code, courts should keep in mind that the secrecy of correspondence, telephone conversations, as well as postal, telegraph and other messages is considered violated when access to its content and information about the very facts of correspondence, negotiations and messages is made in the absence of legal grounds and without the consent of the person whose secret they are. “Other messages” means any confidential messages transmitted both via telecommunication networks and by postal and courier services, including on electronic media (clause 5).

Dmitry Dyadkin noted that the greatest difficulty in qualifying such acts is that any act of communication represents communication of at least two entities - the sender and the addressee. “The natural question is: what should be the qualification of the actions of a person who violated the secrecy of correspondence? - the expert reflects. – In this case, the constitutional rights of both the addressee and the sender are violated. This judgment is true even if the message contained information about only one of the participants in the correspondence, since the fact of the message represents the personal life of the citizen.”

The lawyer believes that this issue is not resolved in the draft: “Moreover, the Supreme Court formulates its explanations in such a way that the secret may be violated if, for example, familiarization with correspondence occurred without the consent of the person (and not the persons!).”

According to Alexander Brester, clause 4 clearly states that all correspondence on phones - in any messaging program - is protected by law. “It has long been an urgent issue that law enforcement agencies obtain information about such correspondence without a court decision - arbitrarily or as part of an inspection. If you use the proposed interpretation, this cannot be done. Previously, the Constitutional Court avoided answering this question. It’s not a fact that something will change, but now there is something to refer to,” he explained.

In paragraph 6 it is established that under Art. 138 of the Criminal Code qualifies actions related to violation of the secrecy of correspondence, telegraph conversations, postal, telegraph and other messages of a specific person or an indefinite number of persons, committed with direct intent. In this case, liability arises for violation of a person’s right to confidentiality - regardless of whether the transmitted information constitutes a personal or family secret or not.

In addition, it is noted that familiarization with the fact or content of correspondence, negotiations and messages with the consent of at least one of the persons whose secret they leave does not form the specified crime, and also that the dissemination of information after such familiarization without the consent of the said persons shall be subject to criminal liability under Art. 137 CC. However, as an option it is proposed to exclude this paragraph.

Alexander Brester believes that with this paragraph the Supreme Court tried to resolve a long-standing dispute about whose consent is required to disclose the secrets of correspondence - all its participants or not all. According to the expert, the Supreme Court carefully proposed to indicate the sufficiency of the consent of one of the participants. “But this paragraph can be excluded, which, as it seems to me, is wrong. Sometimes, for protection purposes, it is necessary to use correspondence, recording one’s own conversation with another person, etc., but the courts refer to the fact that without the consent of the other person (or without warning about the recording), such use is illegal,” he explained.

The expert added that this is relevant both for civil and family disputes, and for defense in criminal cases. “Of course, there must be a certain level of trust between people - when corresponding with someone, I don’t want to think that my interlocutor can easily show the correspondence to third parties. However, should this situation be under legal protection? – asks Alexander Brester. “So far, the Supreme Court believes that no, but indicates that such disclosure should not affect personal and family secrets.”

Dmitry Dyadkin also believes that the exclusion of this paragraph is extremely undesirable, since this will lead to legal uncertainty in this issue and, accordingly, an arbitrary and unfounded expansion of the grounds for bringing persons to criminal liability. “We believe that if a definition is controversial, it needs to be refined, not excluded,” he added.

In paragraph 7 of the draft clarifications of the Plenum it is noted that liability under Art. 138.1 of the Criminal Code for the illegal production, acquisition and (or) sale of special technical means intended for secretly obtaining information occurs in cases where such actions are committed in violation of the requirements of the law without an appropriate license and not for the purpose of conducting an operational investigation.

It is clarified that household devices (smartphones, voice recorders, video recorders) can be recognized as special technical means only if they were deliberately given new qualities and properties to secretly obtain information. In some such cases, a specialist or expert opinion will be required.

The Supreme Court emphasizes (clause 9) that the mere fact of illegal trafficking of special technical means cannot indicate a person’s guilt in committing a crime under Art. 138.1 of the Criminal Code, if his intent was not aimed at the acquisition and (or) sale of precisely such technical means (for example, if a person purchased such a device in an online store as a household device and was honestly mistaken about its actual purpose).

Also, this article cannot qualify the actions of a person who purchased a device for secretly obtaining information for the purposes of personal safety, the safety of family members, including children, as well as for the safety of property and tracking animals, and did not intend to use it to infringe on constitutional rights citizens.

Illegal trafficking of special technical means intended for secretly obtaining information, according to Alexander Brester, is the most painful of the topics raised from the point of view of criminal law and process. “Here the Supreme Court states very simple things that should already be clear to law enforcement officers: it is necessary to prove intent to purchase a device specifically for secretly obtaining information, as well as that a person deliberately acquires a device with the aim of violating the constitutional rights of citizens. In a good way, all cases of conviction of persons for purchasing glasses with video cameras or other technical devices for personal use should be reviewed on the basis of this instruction,” the expert believes.

According to Dmitry Kravchenko, clarifications related to clarifying the conditions for bringing to justice for the illegal circulation of special equipment for secretly obtaining information are long overdue and will, in most cases, eliminate unjustified prosecution in the absence of signs of public danger.

Right to inviolability of home

In paragraph 10 of the draft resolution, the attention of the courts is drawn to the fact that Art. 139 of the Criminal Code provides for liability for entry into a home committed against the will of the person living there in the absence of legal grounds for limiting this constitutional right.

In accordance with the note to this article and its relationship with Art. 16 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation the following are recognized as housing (clause 11):

an individual residential building (including its part) with residential and non-residential premises included in it - that is, not separated from the residential building by a veranda, basement, attic, garage, etc.;
residential premises included in the housing stock and suitable for permanent or temporary residence, regardless of the form of ownership;
a premises or building intended for temporary residence that is not part of the housing stock.

At the same time, the non-compliance of a premises or building with sanitary, technical and other standards, as well as its unsuitability for habitation and exclusion from the housing stock are not determining factors for its non-recognition as a home and deprivation of the persons who actually live in it of the corresponding constitutional right. “The question of the possibility or impossibility of recognizing such a premises or structure as a dwelling should be decided taking into account not only its technical characteristics and parameters... but also other circumstances of the case, including the legality and duration of use of this premises or structure as a dwelling,” the draft states. resolutions.

Clause 12 explains the criteria according to which a dwelling within the meaning of the notes to Art. 139 of the Criminal Code cannot be recognized:

premises, buildings separate from an individual residential building (cellar, barn, bathhouse, garage), if they were not specially adapted for living;
premises not intended for residential use in public places, as well as offices and utility rooms in organizational buildings;
intended only for temporary stay during a trip, travel (train compartment, ship cabin, tourist tent, etc.);
residential premises used exclusively as, for example, a warehouse, a workshop.

Under penetration into a home in relation to Art. 139 of the Criminal Code, according to paragraph 13, is understood as a secret or open intrusion committed directly or with the help of technical means (for example, for the illegal installation of a listening device or video surveillance device). This paragraph is also proposed to be stated in another wording: “Under penetration into a home in relation to Art. 139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be understood as a secret or open intrusion (entry) of a person into the relevant premises or structure.”

According to Dmitry Dyadkin, a narrow interpretation that allows only intrusion (entry) as an act will not fully reflect the entire range of crimes in this category, and also does not correspond to modern trends and the level of development of technical means that allow encroaching on a protected article. 139 CC object.

In accordance with clauses 14 and 15 of the project, entry into a home is recognized as committed against the will of the person living there in the absence of voluntary consent to the admission of the intruder, expressed in any form. At the same time, the actions of a person who entered the home with such consent, but did not leave it at the request of the resident, do not form a crime under Art. 139 of the Criminal Code. It is clarified that the courts should take into account the intent of the guilty person, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the existence and nature of the relationship of the guilty person with persons living in a given residential premises or building, as well as the method of entry, etc.

Paragraph 16 indicates that if a person who illegally entered a home had the intent to seize someone else’s property, then his actions will be covered by the relevant article of the Criminal Code with the qualifying sign of illegal entry and will not require additional qualifications under Art. 139 of the Criminal Code. It does not matter that the culprit entered the home for the purpose of theft, which escalated into robbery or robbery. If the court establishes that the intent to commit theft, robbery or robbery arose after illegal entry into a home, the act should be qualified in conjunction with the crime provided for in Art. 139 of the Criminal Code. In this case, the person’s actions will not contain the qualifying sign of theft with “illegal entry into a home.”

In addition, the actions of the perpetrator can be qualified under Part 2 of Art. 139 of the Criminal Code, if violence or the threat of its use was committed at the time of the invasion or immediately after it to implement the intent to illegally enter the home (clause 17).

Violations in the field of labor law

As stated in clause 18 of the draft, an unjustified refusal to hire or an unjustified dismissal of a person who has reached the pre-retirement age specified in the note to Art. 144.1 of the Criminal Code, as well as a woman who is known to be pregnant or has children under three years of age, entails criminal liability under Art. 144.1 and 145 of the Criminal Code only in cases where the employer was guided by a corresponding discriminatory motive.

It is explained that in the case where an employment contract with an employee was terminated on his initiative, but in the case there is evidence of coercion of the employee to submit a letter of resignation precisely in connection with the specified criteria, such actions also form a crime under the specified articles.

Dmitry Dyadkin noted that the Plenum’s explanations on the qualification of actions under Art. 144.1 and 145 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation seem quite reasonable and will be extremely relevant in connection with the expected increase in the number of such cases in the future.

In accordance with clause 19, non-payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, allowances and other payments established by law are partially or fully qualified, respectively, under Part 1 or 2 of Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code only when the specified acts are intentionally committed, as well as out of selfish or personal interest. In this regard, the presence of the head of the organization or other person specified in Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code, a real financial ability to pay wages and other payments or its absence due to his unlawful actions is subject to proof and is one of the grounds for criminal liability.

In addition, paragraph 20 of the draft emphasizes that criminal liability under Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code occurs, including in cases of non-payment of wages and other payments to employees whose relationships related to the use of personal labor and arose on the basis of a civil law contract are recognized as labor relations, or arose on the basis of actual admission to work with the knowledge or on behalf of the employer or his authorized representative, when the employment contract was not concluded or not properly executed (Article 16 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Clause 21 notes that the period of formation of arrears in payments to an employee is calculated based on the terms of payment of wages established by the internal labor regulations of the organization, a collective or labor agreement, as well as from the time during which wages were not actually paid for more than two months (in case of partial payment - three months) until these factors are identified by law enforcement agencies, or the debt is repaid, or the employee is dismissed.

It is also clarified that the period of delay is calculated from the day following the due date for payment. The end of the period is considered to be the beginning of the day that occurs two (three) months after the calendar date established for making the relevant payments. “At the same time, periods of non-payment for individual months of the year cannot be summed up into a period of more than two or three months if they were interrupted by periods when payments were made,” the draft document states.

Also, paragraph 22 offers an explanation that the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution for committing a continuing crime under Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code are calculated from the time the criminal inaction of the perpetrator ceases due to his own actions (for example, repayment of a debt) or the occurrence of events that prevent the continuation of the crime (for example, his dismissal, the intervention of law enforcement agencies). At the same time, the fact of dismissal of an employee whose salary was not paid does not affect the calculation of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution of the employer.

Noting the significance of the explanations contained in paragraphs 21–22 of the draft, Dmitry Dyadkin emphasized that the final position of the Plenum regarding the qualification of the actions of the culprit in cases where the employer did not pay wages to employees in full or in part has not been developed.

Point 23 is offered in two versions. The first states that non-payment of wages to some employees partially for more than three months, and to others - in full for more than two months should be qualified only under Part 2 of Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code, and all signs of the act must be given in the descriptive part of the conviction. In the second option, it is proposed to qualify the act as a combination of two independent crimes provided for in Parts 1 and 2 of Art. 145.1 CC.

As Dmitry Dyadkin noted, the proposal for discussion of two editions containing conceptually different approaches to solving the problem is puzzling. “I believe that the decision in this case should be based on the doctrine of criminal law and the theory of classification of crimes, which imply the need for classification based on the totality of crimes,” he explained. The proposed takeover option, according to the expert, is a legal fiction that will be enshrined in the act of interpretation of the law, and the question of its necessity and relevance for this crime remains open.

Paragraph 24 states that criminal cases involving crimes under Part 1 of Art. 137, part 1 art. 138, part 1 art. 139 and art. 145 of the Criminal Code relate to cases of private-public accusations, and in the event of reconciliation of the parties to the dispute, they are not subject to mandatory termination in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 20 Code of Criminal Procedure. At the same time, in the cases provided for in Art. 76 of the Criminal Code, if a person has committed such a crime of minor gravity for the first time, reconciled with the victim and made amends for the harm caused to him, the court has the right to terminate the criminal case at the request of the victim.

The final paragraph of the draft notes that when considering criminal cases of crimes under Ch. 19 of the Criminal Code, courts should respond to violations of the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens, as well as other violations of the law, by issuing private rulings or resolutions to relevant organizations and officials so that they can take the necessary measures (Part 4 of Article 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code).

According to Dmitry Kravchenko, in general, the explanations of the Supreme Court indicate that in judicial practice there is not always an understanding that in order to be held criminally liable, there must be a sign of public danger in the actions of the accused.

Alexander Brester noted that, in general, the proposed clarifications of the Supreme Court can be assessed positively. “In particular, we see an indication that before prosecuting a person for violating privacy, it is necessary to prove that the person himself understands that this is a personal and family secret. This is very difficult to do, especially considering the fact that proving the subjective side is not the strongest feature of our investigative bodies,” he added.

Noting the importance and practical significance of this document, Dmitry Dyadkin emphasized that the draft resolution contains a significant number of explanations of problematic situations, and expressed the hope that it will resolve the most pressing issues of law enforcement, which will improve the situation with the legality and fairness of Russian justice.

Qualifying features

Criminal liability for violation of privacy is subject exclusively to a sane individual who was 16 years old .

When committing an act, a person must be aware that the actions he is taking are prohibited by law and cause harm to other citizens. Moreover, a person cannot be charged with the notorious Article 137 of the Criminal Code unless it is established that he had a personal or selfish interest .

The violator must either be personally interested (that is, strive to obtain an intangible profit, for example, wanting to discredit a person for career reasons) in the publicity of other people's private data.

Or do it out of self-interest .

The latter is understood as the desire to gain property benefits from publicity , without appropriating someone else's property by illegal means. For example, a violator makes public other people’s personal data for a monetary reward or sells it to journalists for a certain amount.

Private life

The inviolability of private life, which is protected by the Constitution and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, implies the prohibition of anyone invading a person’s personal space - his affairs, secrets, communication with relatives, acquaintances and friends. There is only one exception here, in essence - what a person does, the way he behaves, is illegal.

In connection with different approaches to the interpretation of private life and everything connected with it, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation outlined the following aspects that are most important for law enforcement:

Any information about private life is classified as confidential information, which means that access to it by anyone is limited by default - every other person, society, state, and its bodies.
Any person has the right to decide for himself who to give consent to receive and disseminate information about his private life, and who not, how to use information about himself, how to protect it and limit access to it.
Collection, storage, use, distribution and other operations with information constituting information about private life are permissible only in the manner and in cases expressly provided for by law.
In order to truly protect privacy, laws have been adopted and are in force in Russia that define the grounds and procedure for obtaining, storing, using and disseminating information about private life. And, in addition, there are laws, in particular the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provide for liability, even criminal, for violators.
If a person himself has made information about his private life publicly available, for example, published it on the Internet, its further use by anyone will no longer be a violation. True, if such use does not constitute an offense of another kind.
The actions of officials, in particular the police, the FSB, etc., are not violations. on obtaining and using information about a person’s private life, if it is carried out officially, in the manner prescribed by law and on a legal basis. For example, if, as part of operational-search activities, authorized wiretapping of telephone conversations is carried out, surveillance of a person is carried out, personal information is requested, then this is all a legal invasion of privacy. True, in this part the position of the European Court of Human Rights in many cases diverges from the position of Russian courts. And there are many examples when ORM were recognized as a violation of the European Convention, and people received compensation from the state.

Violation of privacy is considered illegal, including constituting a crime, which:

had no legal basis and (or) was carried out in violation of the established procedure;
was carried out without the knowledge and (or) consent of the person, except for cases where the law allows for a violation of privacy, for example, conducting operational investigation or investigative actions.

Delimitation

People have the right to protect their correspondence and the inviolability of their home from the attacks of others. However, this is already regulated by other articles of criminal law - 138-139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation .

Non-disclosure of correspondence already applies to the competition rules of general and special norms, as stated in Article 17 (Part 3) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Let's give examples. In the first, someone, wanting to discredit a colleague, “clicked” photographs that illustrated the intimate relationships of a rival and distributed them. In the second, I secretly read the letters , learned about the intimate preferences of the competitor and also divulged them.

In the latter case, the presence of the rule of competition of norms , therefore the act is qualified under two articles of the criminal law - 137, part 1 and 138 . In the first version, the crime fully falls under Article 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation .

When is it permissible to invade privacy?

In some cases, the law allows interference in the private life of a citizen. It can be done:

Upon official request. When a person is involved in a criminal, civil, or administrative case, law enforcement agencies must send him a written request to obtain certain information that concerns his personal life. The media can also write a letter from the editor requesting permission to disseminate personal information about the hero of the publication.
By the tribunal's decision. Law enforcement agencies can access personal information without a citizen's consent if there is a court order to do so.

Note!
Exceptions apply to people who have committed a crime, disappeared, or are considered a danger to society.

A wanted notice may contain a person’s personal data, or the media may publish a report about a dangerous criminal.

The court may prohibit the release of criminal case data anywhere. This applies to legal proceedings involving minors or crimes against them. Such meetings will be closed.

What is the punishment?

Anyone who likes to divulge other people's secrets can expect punishment in the form of arrest for up to four months; corrective labor or a fine .

The latter can be either 2-5 monthly salary of the convicted person or 200-500 minimum wage.

If it was proven that the talker used his official position for publicity (Article 137, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), the punishment will be more severe .

be deprived of the right to hold certain positions for two to five years . They may be sentenced to a fine of 5-8 monthly salaries or up to eight hundred times the minimum wage. Or arrest for a period of four to six months.