and arbitrariness, namely an efficient judicial review of the lawfulness of, and justification for, the inspection and the subsequent measures taken by the Slovak Competition Authority (see   Smirnov

center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Note d’information sur la jurisprudence de la Cour N o 88 Juillet-Août 2006 Sergey Smirnov

  9348/14, §§ 28-34, 18 December 2018; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia , no.   43149/10, §§ 51-56, 13 February 2018; Trosin v.

  In the case of Andrey Smirnov v.

par Cathy D..., responsable des ressources humaines des deux sociétés du groupe Société logistique service et la E..., montrant les recherches effectuées ; - les courriers envoyés par Mme D... au SMIRR

de l’article 5 §§ 1, 3 et 4 Violation de l’article 6 § 1 (durée) Satisfaction équitable   : aucune demande présentée par le requérant pour dommages, 125 EUR (frais et dépens)   Aleksandr Smirnov

margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 67591/09 Aleksandr Valeryevich SMIRNOV

Smirnov, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg. 3.     The application was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). 4.

Smirnov, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice.

(Voir aussi Smirnov c.   Russie , 71362/01, 7   juin 2007, Note d’information   98 , et Gutsanovi c.

  Russie , n o   33761/05, §§   124 ‑ 127, 5   juin 2014, et Andrey Smirnov c. Russie , n o   3149/10, §§   35 ‑ 38, 13   février 2018)   ?

with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, home and correspondence in accordance with the law and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention (see Smirnov

text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Note d’information sur la jurisprudence de la Cour N o 98 Juin 2007 Smirnov

If so, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see Smirnov v. Russia , no. 71362/01, §§ 53-59, 7 June 2007)?

In the case of Smirnov and Others v.

  Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 116-17, ECHR 2015; and Andrey Smirnov v.   Russia , no. 43149/10, §§ 35-36, 13 February 2018). 17.

Russia (no. 21851/03) Sergey Smirnov v.

0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } FIFTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 1409/03 by Yevgeniy Anatoliyovych SMIRNOV

avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } FIRST SECTION Application no. 9362/08 Vladimir Vasilyevich SMIRNOV

A..., représenté par Me Smira : 1°) forme opposition à la contrainte émise le 3 septembre 2025, signifiée par voie de commissaire de justice le 23 septembre 2025, par laquelle la direction régionale