GLUKHIN v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT The police report (see paragraph 11 above) did not explain which operational-search measures had been taken to identify him. The applicant’s attempt to challenge the lawfulness of such measures failed, as the courts summarily dismissed his complaints (see paragraphs 16-17 above). In such circumstances it was not unreasonable for the applicant to assume that facial recognition technology had been used in his case. The Government did not explicitly deny this or provide any clarifications as to the measures used to identify the applicant. Lastly, the Court takes note of public information available regarding numerous cases involving the use of facial recognition technology to identify participants of protest events in Russia (see paragraph 40 above). 71. Furthermore, according to the applicant, the police acknowledged the use of the live facial recognition CCTV cameras to arrest him while he was travelling in the Moscow underground (see paragraph 12 above). The Government’s reference to the applicable legal basis, including the decree providing for the installation of CCTV cameras in the Moscow underground ensuring detection and identification of target persons by video-surveillance systems, can be interpreted as an implicit acknowledgment that live facial recognition technology was used in the present case (see paragraph 33 above). 72. Against this background, and taking into account the difficulty for the applicant to prove his allegations because the domestic law did not provide for an official record or notification of the use of facial recognition technology, the absence of any other explanation for the rapid identification of the applicant, and the implicit acknowledgment by the Government of the use of live facial recognition technology, the Court accepts in the particular circumstances of the case that facial recognition technology was used. The Court has previously found that the storage of photographs by the police, coupled with a possibility of applying facial recognition techniques to them, constituted an interference with the right to private life (see Gaughran v. the United Kingdom, no. 45245/15, §§ 69-70, 13 February 2020). 73. The Court concludes that the processing of the applicant’s personal data in the framework of the administrative offence proceedings against him, including the use of facial recognition technology – first, to identify him from the photographs and the video published on Telegram and, secondly, to locate and arrest him later while he was travelling on the Moscow underground – amounted to an interference with his right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention. (b) Justification for the interference (i) General principles 74. The Court reiterates that any interference can only be justified under Article 8 § 2 if it is in accordance with the law, pursues one or more of the legitimate aims to which paragraph 2 of Article 8 refers and is necessary in a 24