CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 juillet 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD046859D { width:101.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       SECOND SECTION CASE OF MULDAGALIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 15013/18 and 8 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Muldagaliyeva and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 June 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the unlawful search. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the unlawful search. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention. Ms   Prokopyeva and Mr Kamalyagin (application no.   43810/19) also referred to Article   10 of the Convention. 8.     In the leading cases concerning searches of the applicants’ homes (see Misan v. Russia , no. 4261/04, 2 October 2014, and Kruglov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, 4 February 2020), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the searches were carried out without relevant and sufficient grounds and in the absence of safeguards that would confine their impact to reasonable bounds. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. 11.     In view of the above findings, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the applicants’ grievances (application no.   43810/19) from the standpoint of Article   10 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Misan, cited above, § 70), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the unlawful search; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 July 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lorraine Schembri Orland   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful search) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Type of search Premises Date of the search authorisation Name of issuing authority Date of the search Means of exhaustion Specific defects Other relevant information Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant / household (in euros) [1]     15013/18 14/03/2018 Gulmira Urazbayevna MULDAGALIYEVA 1982 Kulapov Vitaliy Viktorovich Moscow Inspection of the applicant’s flat under the Law on Operative and Investigative Activities 14/09/2017, Saratov Regional Court search on 15/09/2017,   Frunzenskiy District Court of Saratov, 23/10/2017,   Saratov Regional Court, 13/12/2017 no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion)   7,500     43810/19   05/08/2019 and 16/08/2022 Svetlana Vladimirovna PROKOPYEVA 1979   Denis Nikolayevich KAMALYAGIN 1985   Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich Moscow (1) Search of the first applicant’s flat was conducted within the framework of the criminal proceedings against her,       (2) Urgent search of the first applicant’s house within the framework of the criminal proceedings against unidentified persons on the charges of extremism,       (3) Urgent search of the second applicant’s flat within the framework of the criminal proceedings against unidentified persons on the charges of extremism (1) 06/02/2019, Pskov Town Court             (2) 18/03/2022, Pskov Town Police Investigator               (3) 18/03/2022, Pskov Town Police Investigator (1) search on 06/02/2019,   Pskov Regional Court, 03/04/2019         (2) search on 18/03/2022,   Pskov Town Court, 20/03/2022,   Pskov Regional Court, 27/04/2022     (3) search on 18/03/2022,   Pskov Town Court, 20/03/2022,   Pskov Regional Court, 27/04/2022               no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation (1) On 05/02/2019 the investigator with the regional investigative committee opened a criminal case against the applicant on the charge of public calls to justify terrorism in connection with the applicant’s publication and podcast. (2) and (3) The second criminal case was opened in response to a publication on Internet allegedly discrediting Mr   V. 7,500, to each of the applicants     34276/20 04/08/2020 Rustam Ratmirovich ISKHAKOV 1996 Markelov Igor Olegovich Moscow Urgent search of the applicant’s flat 15/02/2020, Investigator, District Department of the Interior; the search order was authorised by the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow on 21/02/2020 Search on 15/05/2020,   final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 19/05/2020 no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect   7,500     9637/21 28/01/2021 Yevgeniya Andreyevna SANINA 1983     Urgent search of the applicant’s flat 13/08/2019, senior investigator, authorised by the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow on 12/10/2020 Search on 14/08/2019,   upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 16/12/2020 no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect The search was conducted within the framework of the criminal proceedings against third parties on the charges of illegal banking activities conducted by an organised group; the applicant knew the alleged perpetrators   7,500     40145/21 23/07/2021 Petr Yuryevich VERZILOV 1987 Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow Urgent search of the applicant’s flat in connection with criminal investigation in respect of unidentified organisers of mass protest and unrest 21/06/2020, senior investigator with the investigative committee; upheld by the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow on 02/02/2021 Search on 21/06/2020, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 07/04/2021 no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect On 07/07/2020 the applicant was charged with failure to report a dual nationality to the Russian migration service 7,500     46776/21 10/09/2021 Ivan Yuryevich PAVLOV 1971 Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna Strasbourg Search of the applicant’s flat and offices; search of the hotel room where the applicant stayed 27/04/2021 and 29/04/2021, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow Search on 30/04/2021,   the relevant search orders were upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 07/07/2021 and 08/07/2021 no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no special safeguards for lawyers: no presence of independent observers, no special safeguards for lawyers: no special instructions by a judge regarding privileged materials   The applicant, a practising attorney, was charged with having divulged the classified information pertaining to the criminal investigation in respect of one of his clients 7,500     57274/21 17/11/2021 Svetlana Nikolayevna KOVALETS 1973 Cherkasov Vitaliy Viktorovich St Petersburg Applicant’s flat 06/02/2021, investigator’s decision (urgent search) 06/02/2021, lawfulness of the decision confirmed by domestic courts upon the applicant’s appeal (final decision St   Petersburg City Court on 27/05/2021) no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation   7,500     57897/21 13/11/2021 Tatyana Ivanovna LEYSHA 1955 Cherkasov Vitaliy Viktorovich St Petersburg Search in the applicant’s flat within the framework of the criminal proceedings against unidentified persons; urgent search 31/01/2021, Senior investigator, department of the Ministry of the Interior Search on 31/01/2021,   Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 02/02/2022;     St Petersburg City Court, 24/05/2021   no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect   7,500     14626/22 20/02/2022 (5   applicants) Household Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK 1976   Irina Vladimirovna KHARIONOVSKAYA 1976   Kristina Ernestovna MEZAK 2005   NIkolay Ernestovich MEZAK 2002   Nina Vasilyevna MEZAK 1951 Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow search of the flat 25/06/2021, Syktyvdinskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi Search on 26/06/2021,   the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld the search order on appeal on 20/08/2021 no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion) The search was conducted within the framework of the criminal proceedings against the first applicant charged with contempt of the court 7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.