CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 février 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s684237A1 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s37839E0D { margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s561A3FCE { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; list-style-position:inside } .s462450CE { width:28.77pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA527F4CF { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC3C29E73 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sAB51C47C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.94pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.26pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s114AEA21 { font-size:9pt } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA547D225 { width:194.27pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7BE5FA79 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   THIRD SECTION         CASE OF KRUGLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 11264/04 and 15 others – see appended list)       JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Respect for home and correspondence • Search of lawyers’ homes and offices and seizure of electronic devices • Courts’ failure to assess necessity and proportionality of investigating authorities’ actions • Domestic law lacking procedural safeguards to prevent interference with professional secrecy • Total lack of safeguards to protect professional confidentiality of legal advisers who are not members of a Bar Art 1 P 1 • Control of the use of property • Unjustified lengthy retention of seized data-storage electronic devices   This version was rectified on 1 February 2021 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.   STRASBOURG   4 February 2020     FINAL   04/06/2020     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kruglov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Dmitry Dedov,   Alena Poláčková,   María Elósegui,   Gilberto Felici,   Lorraine Schembri Orland, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 14 January 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in sixteen applications (nos.   11264/04 and fifteen others) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by twenty-five Russian nationals. A list of the applicants, their representatives and their personal details is set out in the Appendix. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3.     The applicants complained of searches in their premises and seizure and continued retention of data-storage devices. They also complained of the absence of effective remedies for those complaints. 4.     Between 11   February 2008 and 9   February 2017 the Government were given notice of above complaints. The remaining complaints in applications nos. 60648/08, 14244/11, 18403/13 and 29786/15 were declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule   54   §   3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE Summary 5.     The applicants are practising lawyers (with the exception of Mr   Sokolov, Mr Burykin and Mr Makovoz, who are clients of Ms   Belinskaya, a lawyer, application no. 14244/11). With the exception of Mr   Fedorov, Mr   Silivanov and Mr Mezentsev (applications nos. 58290/08, 10825/11 and 73629/13), they are members of the Bar. Police officers searched the lawyers’ homes or offices. The applicants complained to the national courts of the unlawfulness of the search warrants and/or of the manner in which the searches had been carried out. Their complaints were unsuccessful. Particular applications Application no. 11264/04, Kruglov v. Russia 6.     Mr Kruglov (formerly Mr Krug) was suspected of libel of a high ‑ ranking judge. 7 .     On 20 October 2003 the Samarskiy District Court of Samara authorised a search of Mr   Kruglov’s flat. It found that based on the submitted material there were sufficient grounds to believe that the instruments of the crime might be located at his home. 8.     On 21 October 2003 the police searched the flat indicated in the court search warrant. As that was in fact Mr   Kruglov’s parents’ residence, the police searched another flat where Mr   Kruglov actually lived. They did so under the “urgent procedure” without seeking a court search warrant in respect of that flat. 9 .     Mr   Kruglov brought proceedings under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the “CCrP”, see below) alleging that the police’s actions in respect of the search of his second flat had been unlawful. On 28   October 2003 the court dismissed his complaint, holding that the search procedure had been complied with; that the search had been based on a valid court search warrant and that there had been no information that the authorities had seized any private or professional confidential information belonging to Mr   Kruglov. 10.     Mr   Kruglov appealed against the court decision of 20   October 2003 to issue a search warrant and the court decision under Article 125 of the CCrP of 28   October 2003. His appeals were dismissed on 5 December 2003. Application no. 32324/06, Buraga v. Russia 11.     Ms Buraga’s husband was suspected of theft. 12 .     On 1 November 2005 the Verkh-Isetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg authorised a search of Ms Buraga’s flat. It held that based on the submitted material there were sufficient grounds to believe that documents relevant to the criminal case might be located at Ms Buraga’s home. 13.     The search was performed on 22 November 2005. During the search, the police seized two computer central processing units, two mobile phones, a compact disc and a red file containing some documents, all belonging to Ms Buraga. An expert examined the content of the seized computer units on 24   November 2005. 14.     On 30   November 2005 Ms Buraga asked the investigator to return the objects seized during the search of her flat, as she used them for her professional activities as an advocate. On 5   December 2005 the investigator replied that the seized objects would be returned once the investigating authorities no longer needed them. On 13   December 2005 the vice-president of the Bar of which Ms Buraga was a member asked the investigating authorities to return material covered by professional legal privilege which had been seized during the search. 15.     On 19   December 2005 the two computer units and mobile phones were returned to Ms Buraga. The remainder of the seized objects was joined to the criminal case. 16.     Meanwhile, Ms Buraga appealed against the court decision to issue a search warrant of 1   November 2005. She argued, in particular, that the court had not taken into account that the flat belonged to her and that she was a lawyer admitted to the Bar, with the result that information covered by professional legal privilege had been seized. On 23 December 2005 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that Ms   Buraga had not proved that she had been using her flat for professional activities. 17 .     Ms Buraga also brought proceedings under Article   125 of the CCrP, complaining about the police’s actions when carrying out the search. She argued, among other things, that upon learning that she was an advocate, the police should have stopped the search. Ms Buraga further complained of the unlawful seizure of her computer processing units and documents, which contained legally privileged information concerning her clients. She also complained that the police had refused to permit her lawyer to assist her during the search. The court decisions on that complaint were quashed on two occasions, and on 3   February 2009 her complaint was eventually dismissed. The court established that the search had been lawful and well ‑ founded; it had been based on a valid court search warrant, which had been issued not in respect of Ms Buraga, but in respect of her husband; Ms   Buraga had not mentioned her status as an advocate in the search record; there had been no information that any legally privileged material had been seized; and her lawyer, Mr K., had not been allowed to attend the search because by the time he had arrived, the search had already begun. 18.     The court decision of 3   February 2005 was upheld on appeal on 6   March 2005. Application no. 26067/08, Belinskaya v. Russia 19.     Mr L., who resided with Ms Belinskaya in her flat, was suspected of drug dealing. 20 .     On 26   July 2006 the Vyborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg authorised a search of Ms Belinskaya’s flat. It held that since L. resided in that flat, objects and documents which could be used as evidence and to identify the perpetrator(s) of the offence could be located there. 21 .     On 30   March 2007 Ms Belinskaya’s home was searched. She brought proceedings under Article 125 of the CCrP complaining of the authorities’ unlawful actions during the search of her flat. In particular, she argued that after she had told the police officers that she was an advocate, they should have stopped the search. On 25   July 2007 the Vyborgskiy District Court dismissed her complaint. It held that the search had been based on a valid court search warrant issued as part of an ongoing criminal investigation not against Ms Belinskaya but against D., who was suspected of drug offences; that Ms Belinskaya had not made any comments, including about her advocate status, in the search record; and that no documents subject to legal privilege had been seized. 22.     The above-mentioned court decision was upheld on appeal on 17   October 2007. Application no. 58290/08, Fedorov v. Russia (a)    Court search warrant 23.     Mr   Fedorov is a lawyer working for a human rights organisation. He is not a member of a Bar association. 24 .     On 6   August 2007 Mr   Fedorov was engaged to defend Mr.   Ye., who was suspected of theft. On 13 August 2007 the Ibresinskiy District Court of the Republic of Chuvashiya authorised a search of Mr   Fedorov’s flat. It found that there were reasons to believe that the objects stolen by Z. could be located at Mr   Fedorov’s home and thus the search would help uncover evidence relevant for the criminal investigation. 25.     On 14 August 2007 an investigator searched Mr   Fedorov’s flat in the presence of Mr   Fedorov and two witnesses. He found and seized two bracelets, a ring, a car radio and a notepad. (b)    Ex post facto judicial review of the decision to issue a search warrant 26 .     On 18 September 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashiya quashed the decision of 13 August 2007 and remitted the matter to the first-instance court for fresh examination. It held, in particular, that the first-instance court’s conclusion as to the possible presence of stolen property at Mr   Fedorov’s home had not been consistent with the facts of the criminal case. 27.     On 3 October 2007 the Ibresinskiy District Court of the Republic of Chuvashiya, having examined the case anew, held that the investigating authorities had not provided sufficient information to support their request for a search of Mr   Fedorov’s flat and accordingly dismissed the request. On the same day the items seized from Mr   Fedorov’s flat were returned to him. 28.     On 13 November 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashiya upheld that decision. (c)    Compensation proceedings 29.     On 31 March 2008 Mr   Fedorov brought court proceedings against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation before the Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary, Republic of Chuvashiya (“the Leninskiy District Court”). He sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage on the grounds that the search of his flat had been declared unlawful. 30 .     On 22 May 2008 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed Mr   Fedorov’s claim as unsubstantiated. On 25 June 2008 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashiya upheld that judgment on an appeal. Application no. 60648/08, Fast v. Russia 31.     The police had been investigating allegedly fraudulent claims for damages and legal expenses from the Russian Railways using forged documents – bills for legal services provided by the law firm Pravovoye Sodeystviye, where Ms   Fast worked. 32 .     On 3   September 2008 the Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod granted an application lodged by the investigator for a warrant to search the premises of the law firm, having found it “well-founded”. 33.     On 5   September 2008 the police searched Ms Fast’s office. During the search they seized seven computer central processing units from her office. 34.     On 17   October 2008 an appeal complaint lodged by Ms Fast arguing that the search warrant of 3   September 2008 and the seizure of the computer units had been unlawful was dismissed. 35.     On 29   May 2009 the criminal case within the framework of which Ms   Fast’s office had been searched was closed for lack of corpus delicti . On an unspecified day thereafter, the seized computer units were returned to Ms   Fast. Application no. 2397/11, Balyan and others v. Russia 36.     The authorities opened a criminal investigation against G. and B. and other unidentified people who were suspected of carrying out business activities without a proper licence and with the use of fictitious companies. It appears that the investigating authorities believed that a law firm, ZAO “Printsip prava”, could have had information about those fictitious companies. It applied to a court for a warrant to search the firm’s premises. 37 .     On 17   December 2009 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow issued a search warrant in respect of the law firm. It held that the investigator’s application for a search warrant had complied with the criminal procedural requirements to its form and content, and that the investigator had had sufficient grounds to believe that objects and documents relevant for the investigation could have been located at the law firm’s premises. On 25   December 2009 the search was carried out. 38.     The offices of the applicants Mr Balyan, Mr Sokolov and Mr   Solovyev (who are all advocates) were located on the premises of that law firm, and during the search of the firm their offices were also inspected. 39.     During the search the police seized a computer central processing unit and two hard drives. A metal safe with money was seized from Mr   Balyan’s office. On 14   January 2010 he asked the investigator to return his safe with its contents. On 19   January 2010 the investigating authorities examined the objects and documents contained in the safe and concluded that they were unrelated to the criminal case being investigated. On 19   March 2010 the investigator issued a decision to return the safe with its contents to Mr Balyan. The decision was enforced on the same day. 40.     On 24   March 2010 the Moscow City Court quashed the court decision of 17 December 2009 because the search warrant had not indicated the particular grounds for the search or the exact documents and objects to be seized. It remitted the case for a new examination. 41.     Based on the fact that the court decision of 17   December 2009 had been quashed, Mr Balyan, Mr Sokolov and Mr Solovyev asked the investigator, on at least four occasions, to return the seized objects. On 29   March, and 5, 9 and 16 April 2010 the investigator refused their requests. The investigator’s decisions indicated that Mr Balyan, Mr Sokolov and Mr   Solovyev were entitled to challenge before the courts the refusals to return their computer unit and two hard drives. It appears that those devices have still not been returned. 42 .     On 16   April 2010 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow held a fresh hearing on the investigator’s application for a search warrant. Although Mr Balyan’s then representative (Mr Nikolayev), Mr   Sokolov and Mr   Solovyev arrived at the hearing and the judge allowed them to remain, they were not permitted to make any submissions. The court referred to Article   165 § 3 of the CCrP (see paragraph 90 below), which only provided for the right of a prosecutor and an investigator to participate in court hearings on search warrants. The court again authorised the search of the law firm. It found that the investigator’s application for a search warrant complied with criminal-procedure requirements and that there were sufficient grounds to believe that objects and documents relevant to the criminal case could be located at the law firm’s office. The court also noted that given Mr Balyan, Mr Sokolov and Mr Solovyev had the status of advocates, the search of their law firm had been possible on the basis of the court search warrant. 43.     On 23   June 2010 an appeal lodged by Mr Balyan, Mr Sokolov and Mr Solovyev complaining about the search warrant of 16   April 2010 was dismissed. 44 .     Meanwhile, Mr Balyan also brought proceedings under Article 125 of the CCrP, complaining about the manner in which the search had been carried out and the seizure of documents and objects. In particular, he argued that the court search warrant of 17   December 2009 had been issued in respect of the law firm, but had not covered his advocate’s office, a search of which should have been authorised on an individual basis. On 4   June 2010 his complaint was dismissed. The court held that the search had been performed in compliance with the criminal-procedure requirements and that it had been based on a valid court search warrant issued as part of an ongoing criminal investigation. 45.     On 2   August 2010 the above decision was upheld on appeal. Application no. 10825/11, Silivanov v. Russia 46.     Mr Silivanov is a practising lawyer, but is not a member of a Bar association. He had provided legal services to Ms M., who later became the subject of a criminal investigation in respect of illegal real-estate transactions. 47 .     On 16   July 2010 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg granted an application lodged by the investigator for a warrant to search Mr   Silivanov’s flat, having found it well-founded. It held that as Mr   Silivanov had a close relationship with Ms M., objects and documents about her real-estate transactions relevant to the investigation could be located at Mr   Silivanov’s home.     On 20   July 2010 Mr Silivanov’s home was searched. 48.     Mr Silivanov appealed against the court’s decision of 16   July 2010 to issue a search warrant, claiming that it was groundless, excessively wide ‑ ranging and disproportionate. Mr Silivanov also relied on the Court’s case ‑ law requiring special procedural safeguards to be available in respect of searches of lawyers’ premises. On 11   August 2010 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decision to issue a search warrant. Application no. 14244/11, Belinskaya and others v. Russia 49.     Ms Belinskaya was suspected of having been involved in the production of an allegedly forged medical report about the state of health of a client of hers, Mr   Makovoz. Mr   Sokolov and Mr   Burykin were other clients of Ms Belinskaya at the relevant time. 50 .     On 25   March 2010 the Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg authorised a search of Ms Belinskaya’s office. It found that the forged medical report had been issued at the request of Ms Belinskaya as an advocate, and thus objects and documents relevant to the ongoing criminal investigation could be located at her office. The court ordered the seizure of all data-storage devices with information about the medical report. 51 .     On 26   March 2010 the police searched Ms Belinskaya’s office. During the search, they seized a hard drive and two computers belonging to her. Ms Belinskaya appealed, alleging that the court search warrant of 25   March 2010 had been unlawful. Her appeal was dismissed on 11   May 2010. 52 .     Ms Belinskaya and Mr   Makovoz also brought proceedings under Article   125 of the CCrP. They complained that no special procedural safeguards had been put in place during the search and that Ms   Belinskaya’s hard drive and computers had been seized. The complaint was dismissed on 15   June 2010. The Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg established that a criminal case against Mr Makovoz had been opened; the investigator had had “grounds to believe that Ms Belinskaya had been involved in the offence committed”; the search of the advocate’s flat had been duly authorised by the court; “the search warrant had not contained any limitations”; Ms Belinskaya had not made any comments in the search record; and that the refusal to return the seized objects had been justified by the need to perform expert examinations of those objects. Ms Belinskaya’s computer had already been returned to her. Thus, the court found no evidence of an unlawful interference with Ms   Belinskaya’s activities as an advocate or with her private and family life. On 30   August 2010 the above court decision was upheld on appeal. 53.     Proceedings brought by Mr   Sokolov under Article 125 of the CCrP were dismissed on 16   August 2010. The Kalininskiy District Court of St   Petersburg declined to examine the complaint on the grounds that there had been no interference with Mr   Sokolov’s rights and freedoms as no documents or objects related to him had been searched for or seized and Ms   Belinskaya’s computer had already been returned to her. On 30   September 2010 that decision was upheld on appeal. 54 .     Proceedings brought by Mr   Burykin under Article 125 of the CCrP were dismissed on 10   August 2010. The Kalininskiy District Court of St   Petersburg established that a criminal case against Mr   Makovoz had been opened; that the investigator had had grounds to believe that Ms Belinskaya had been involved in the offence committed; the search of her flat had been duly authorised by the court; Ms Belinskaya had not made any comments in the search record, thus there had been no evidence that the seized documents or objects contained information covered by professional legal privilege. On 23   September 2010 the above court decision was upheld on appeal. Application no. 78187/11, Bulycheva v. Russia 55.     Ms Bulycheva’s office was located on the premises of a company belonging to Ms M. The police suspected the latter of being involved in illegal money transfers. As Ms Bulycheva worked on the premises of Ms   M.’s company, the police also suspected her of being involved. 56 .     On 22   April 2011 the Kirovskiy District Court of Khabarovsk authorised a search of Ms Bulycheva’s office on the grounds that objects and documents relevant to the criminal case could be located there. 57.     A search of Ms Bulycheva’s office was conducted on 25   April 2011. 58.     On 7   June 2011 an appeal lodged by Ms Bulycheva complaining of the unlawfulness of the court search warrant of 22   April 2011 was dismissed.                         Application no. 18403/13, Moiseyeva v. Russia 59 .     Ms Moiseyeva was suspected of stealing three volumes of her client’s criminal case file. On 13   July 2012 the Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok issued two identical search warrants, one for Ms   Moiseyeva’s home and another for her office. It held that the searches were necessary to find the stolen documents. 60.     On 28   August 2012 an appeal lodged by Ms Moiseyeva challenging the lawfulness of the court search warrant of 13   July 2012 was dismissed.                         Application no. 73629/13, Mezentsev v. Russia 61.     Mr Mezentsev is a practising lawyer, but is not a Bar member. In 2011 he represented company P. in a tax dispute. In 2012 the tax authorities reported to the police an alleged offence of tax evasion by Mr M., a director of company P. 62.     On 10 October 2012 the police performed a crime-scene examination ( осмотр места происшествия ) in Mr Mezentsev’s office. They seized two documents and Mr Mezentsev’s computer hard drive containing information about company P., as well as other companies and businessmen represented by Mr Mezentsev in other tax disputes. The tax authorities subsequently used the information from the hard drive as evidence in at least three of their disputes with Mr Mezentsev’s clients. At the end of March 2013 the police returned the hard drive to Mr Mezentsev. No criminal charges were ever brought against Mr M. 63.     Mr Mezentsev brought proceedings under Article 125 of the CCrP, complaining that the police actions had been unlawful. He argued, in particular, that although he was not a Bar member, he was a lawyer permitted by law to render legal services and that he owed a duty of confidentiality to his clients. Therefore, during the search of his office special procedural safeguards, such as prior court authorisation, should have been complied with. 64 .     On 18 March 2013 the Leninskiy District Court of the town of Orsk dismissed Mr Mezentsev’s complaint, finding no irregularities in the conduct of the crime-scene examination of his office. In particular, the court found that the police had been seeking information about criminal activities at company P. They had received “sufficient information giving grounds to believe that objects and documents concerning the activities of company P. might be located in the office ...”. The police had conducted a “crime-scene examination” of Mr Mezentsev’s office which did not require prior judicial authorisation under the CCrP; Mr Mezentsev had been apprised of his rights; two attesting witnesses had been present; and they and Mr   Mezentsev had had the opportunity to add their comments to the record of the crime-scene examination. The court further held that prior authorisation for a search was required from a court only in respect of Bar members, which Mr Mezentsev was not. Finally, the court had found no evidence that Mr Mezentsev’s rights had been breached by the search and the seizure of his computer. On 30 April 2013 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the first-instance court.                         Application no. 7101/15, Lazutkin v. Russia 65.     Mr Lazutkin represented the interests of company A. The Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) suspected unidentified people of transferring money via company A. On 23   September 2014 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court of Yekaterinburg granted requests by an FSB officer for authorisation of operational-search activities (under the Operational-Search Activities Act, see paragraph 88 below) in the form of an “inspection” ( обследование ) of Mr Lazutkin’s home, his office, and his workplace at company A. The court held that the FSB had information about Mr   Lazutkin’s involvement in illegal foreign-currency transactions with the use of forged documents, and thus documents and objects used for criminal activities could be located at his premises. 66.     During the searches on 25   September 2014 the police seized two of Mr Lazutkin’s notebooks and four computers belonging to company A. containing, among other things, documents subject to legal privilege. On 27   April 2016 the investigator issued a decision to retain the seized objects as physical evidence. It appears that the seized objects have not been returned to Mr Lazutkin.                         Application no. 29786/15, Parnachev and others v. Russia 67 .     The applicants, Mr Parnachev, Mr Prokhorov, Mr Pestov and Mr   Rozhkov (who are all advocates) were members of the Novosibirsk Town Advocate Association (“the NTAA”). A Mr   Prokhorov’s client was suspected of misappropriation of funds by means of transferring money for consulting and legal services to a firm of auditors, company N., and to the NTAA. On 5   October 2014 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novosibirsk authorised a search of premises (located in one building) occupied by the NTAA, company N. and other lawyers to find and seize documents related to the provision of consulting and legal services by company N. and the NTAA. The court search warrant contained a detailed list of the exact documents that the investigators were looking for. The court also ordered the seizure of all devices and mobile phones containing correspondence related to the provision of consulting and legal services by company N. and the NTAA. The search took place from 4 p.m. on 6   October 2014 until 11   a.m. on 8   October 2014 as a result of which the police seized all computers and hard drives. It appears that the seized objects have not been returned. 68.     Mr   Parnachev, Mr Prokhorov, Mr Pestov and Mr Rozhkov appealed against the court’s decision to issue a search-and-seizure order of 5   October 2014. In particular, they argued that a search in respect of a lawyer’s premises should relate to an individual lawyer, rather than to premises including all lawyers working there. Mr Parnachev, Mr Prokhorov, Mr   Pestov and Mr Rozhkov considered that the searches of their offices had constituted a disproportionate interference with their rights under Article 8 of the Convention, as it had breached professional secrecy without applying any procedural safeguards as required by the Court’s case-law. On 3   December 2014 the Novosibirsk Regional Court dismissed the appeal. On 25   February 2015 an appeal in cassation lodged by them was also dismissed. A second appeal in cassation was successful and the first ‑ instance court’s decision to issue a search warrant was remitted to the appellate court for fresh examination. On 9   December 2016 the Novosibirsk Regional Court decided to amend the initial search warrant of 5   October   2014, specifying in more detail the documents to be sought by the investigating authorities.                         Application no. 19667/16, Ponyayeva v. Russia [1] 69.     The police investigated Mr N. on suspicion of fraud. Ms Yeliseyeva (Ponyayeva) provided legal services to Mr N.’s companies and the police suspected her of involvement in the alleged fraud. Neither Mr N. nor Ms   Yeliseyeva (Ponyayeva) have ever been officially accused of having committed any offences. (a)    Search of Ms Yeliseyeva (Ponyayeva)’s office 70 .     On 26   January 2015 the Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg authorised a search of the office of a company which was a client of Ms   Yeliseyeva (Ponyayeva) and where she rented a room in which to work. It held that the investigator’s application for search warrant had been lawful, well-founded and reasoned and, thus, had had to be granted. The court noted that the materials submitted to it demonstrated objectively that the investigator had had sufficient grounds to believe that objects and documents relevant for the investigation could have been located on the premises of a company belonging to Mr   N. The judge was aware that Ms   Yeliseyeva (Ponyayeva) represented the interests of Mr   N. before courts and other authorities, but found it unsubstantiated that Ms Yeliseyeva (Ponyayeva) was a member of the Bar and that she indeed had a workplace at the company. 71.     Ms Yeliseyeva (Ponyayeva) brought proceedings under Article 125 of the CCrP, complaining that the police, while searching the company’s office, had also searched the individual workplace that she rented there, despite her status as an advocate. 72 .     On 15   April 2015 Ms Yeliseyeva (Ponyayeva)’s complaint was dismissed. The court found that the search had been based on a valid court order. It further examined the search record, which contained a comment about the seizure of Ms Yeliseyeva (Ponyayeva)’s legally privileged documents. The court questioned a witness who confirmed Ms Yeliseyeva (Ponyayeva)’s position, but it dismissed her statements as unreliable. It thus concluded that there was no evidence that documents covered by professional legal privilege had been seized. The court considered that the remainder of Ms Yeliseyeva (Ponyayeva)’s complaint related rather to admissibility of evidence, and was thus outside its competence. 73.     The above court decision was upheld on appeal on 25   August 2015. (b)    Search of Ms Yeliseyeva (Ponyayeva)’s flat 74 .     On 13   February 2015 the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg authorised a search of Ms Yeliseyeva (Ponyayeva)’s flat, having found “an objective necessity” to allow it. 75 .     On 8   September 2016 the St Petersburg City Court declined to examine an appeal lodged by Ms Yeliseyeva (Ponyayeva) against the decision to issue a search warrant, and terminated the proceedings as the criminal case – in which Ms Yeliseyeva (Ponyayeva)’s flat had been searched – had already been sent for trial.                         Application no. 36833/16, Levchenko v. Russia 76 .     The authorities were investigating illegal transfers of money based on an allegedly fraudulent arbitral award. They decided to apply for a warrant to search the office of the arbitral tribunal located at an advocates’ association “Gorodskaya”, headed by Mr   Levchenko. On 15   April 2015 the Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg granted an application for a search warrant on the grounds that it would contribute to the finding of additional information relevant to the criminal investigation. 77.     On 16   April 2015 the police searched the office of the arbitral tribunal, allegedly also shared by the collegium of advocates “Gorodskaya”. They seized advocates’ notebooks and returned them one year and three months later. The case file indicates that a lawyer from another advocates’ association was eventually convicted in relation to the illegal money transfers under investigation. 78 .     Mr Levchenko brought proceedings under Article 125 of the CCrP, complaining that the search warrant had concerned only the office of the arbitral tribunal and, thus, the search of the office of the advocates’ association had been unlawful. He also complained of the unlawful seizure of his notebook containing information subject to professional legal privilege. On 13   May 2015 the Leninskiy District Court found, in particular, that it had initially authorised the search as part of a criminal investigation; the search had been attended by attesting witnesses; Mr Levchenko’s workplace had been searched because there was no physical separation between it and the arbitral tribunal’s office; and the seizure of Mr   Levchenko’s notebook had also been lawful. An appeal lodged by Mr   Levchenko was dismissed on 20   July 2015; two appeals on cassation were dismissed on 29   October 2015 and 24   December 2015 respectively.                         Application no. 39456/16, Pashkina and others v. Russia 79 .     The authorities were investigating the allegedly deliberate bankruptcy of company   T. by its director, Mr M. On 24   March 2016 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi authorised a search of the office of lawyers Ms Pashkina, Mr Privalov and Mr Levin. The court referred to the FSB’s “results of operational-search activities” and the need to collect evidence for the criminal investigation. 80.     On 25 March 2016 the authorities searched the office and seized a number of litigation case files and the information database from all the office computers. On 12   May 2016 the court’s decision to issue the search warrant was upheld on appeal. RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE Provision of legal assistance and services Types of legal advisers 81 .     Where legal advice is concerned, Russian law distinguishes between legal assistance ( юридическая помощь ), which is provided by qualified advocates, and legal services ( юридические услуги ), which may be rendered by “other people” such as in-house counsel, partners or employees of law firms or other organisations giving legal advice, or independent legal advisers registered as individual businesses (section 1 of the Advocates Act (Law no. 63-FZ of 31 May 2002)). Advocates are independent legal advisers who have been admitted to the Bar and who may not be employed by an organisation (section 2 of the Advocates Act). There are no qualifying requirements to satisfy in order to be allowed to provide legal services. Right to represent parties in court proceedings 82.     Parties to constitutional, criminal, civil, commercial and administrative proceedings may be represented by an advocate or “another person”, as follows. (a)    Criminal proceedings 83.     Under Article 49 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”), a defendant may be represented in criminal proceedings against him or her by an advocate. Subject to the court’s consent a defendant may also be represented by “another person” together with an advocate. In criminal proceedings before justices of the peace “another person” may take the place of an advocate. (b)    Civil proceedings 84.     Under Article 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”), representatives in civil proceedings should be legally capable and have power of attorney to pursue the case. (c)    Commercial proceedings 85.     Under Article   59 §§ 3 and 6 of the Code of Commercial Procedure (“the ComPC”), parties may be represented by advocates and “other persons” with legal capacity and power of attorney to pursue the case. (d)    Administrative proceedings 86.     Under Article   55 §§ 1 and 3 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (“the CAP”), representatives in administrative proceedings may be advocates and “other people” with full legal capacity, a law degree and power of attorney to pursue the case. Professional confidentiality and other obligations 87 .     Advocates are required to abide by the professional ethics code (section 7(4) of the Advocates Act); any breach of the code will be subject to disciplinary liability. Their obligations include a duty of confidentiality to their clients (section 6(5) of the Advocates Act). Any search of an advocate’s premises is subject to certain procedural safeguards (see paragraph 93 below). There are no particular professional requirements or disciplinary liability in respect of other legal advisors. Their premises do not have any special protection from searches. Authorisation of searches General provisions 88 .     The Operational-Search Activities Act (Law no. 144­FZ of 12   August 1995 – hereinafter “the OSAA”) provides that investigating authorities may perform various operational-search measures, including “inspection of premises, buildings, constructions, plots of land and vehicles” (section 6(8)). Operational-search measures involving interference with the constitutional right to, among other things, privacy of the home, may be conducted subject to judicial authorisation (section 8). 89 .     The CCrP provides that examination of a crime scene, a plot of land, residential and other premises, objects and documents may be performed in order to discover criminal traces or other circumstances which are relevant to an investigation (Article   176 §   1). Crime-scene examination of residential premises may be performed only with the consent of the residents or on the basis of a court warrant (Article 176 § 5). In the latter case, an application for a court warrant is made in accordance with the procedure set out in Article   165. 90 .     A search of a place of residence requires a search warrant issued by a court on the basis of an application by an investigator (Article 165). A prosecutor and the investigator have the right to participate in the court hearing on the investigator’s application for a search warrant (Article   165   §   3). 91 .     The Constitutional Court of Russia, in its decision no. 70-O of 10   March 2005, held that Article 165 § 3 does not deprive a person whose home was searched of the possibility to participate in a judicial review of the lawfulness of the search. 92 .     The CCrP provides that there are grounds to carry out a search if there is sufficient information to believe that instruments of a crime or objects, documents or valuables relevant to a criminal case might be found in a specific place or on a specific person (Article 182 § 1). A lawyer of the person whose premises are searched may be present during the search (Article 182 § 11). Search of an advocate’s premises 93 .     A search of the residential and professional premises of an advocate must be authorised by a court warrant. The information, objects and documents obtained during the search may be used in evidence only if they are not covered by lawyer-client confidentiality in a given criminal case (section   8(3) of the Advocates Act). 94 .     The Constitutional Court invited the legislator to adopt additional safeguards for searches of lawyers’ premises, in particular, to ensure that documents covered by professional legal privilege were treated differently from regular material (Resolution 33P/2015 of 17 December 2015). Since 17   April 2017 a new Article 450.1 of the CCrP provides that an advocate’s premises may be searched only if he or she is a suspect in a criminal investigation, on the basis of a court warrant, and in the presence of a representative from the relevant collegium of advocates. A crime-scene examination at an advocate’s premises may exceptionally be carried ou