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 } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; 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 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; 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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       SECOND SECTION CASE OF FRIDMAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 53989/17 and 19 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 Fridman 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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. 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 of the unlawful search. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention. 8.     The Court reiterates that searches of the applicants’ homes amount to an interference with their rights under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention. To be justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention an interference has to be in accordance with law, to pursue a legitimate aim and to be necessary in a democratic society. 9.     The Court has consistently held that the Contracting States may consider it necessary to resort to searches and seizures in order to obtain physical evidence of certain offences. The Court must assess whether the reasons adduced to justify such measures were “relevant” and “sufficient” and whether the proportionality principle has been adhered to. As regards the latter point, the Court must first ensure that the relevant legislation and practice afford individuals adequate and effective safeguards against abuse. Secondly, the Court must consider the particular circumstances of each case in order to determine whether, in the case in question, the interference was proportionate to the aim pursued. The criteria the Court has taken into consideration in determining the latter issue have included the severity of the offence in connection with which the search was effected, the manner and circumstances according to which the order was issued – in particular whether the warrant was based on a reasonable suspicion – and the content and scope of the warrant, having particular regard to the nature of the premises searched and the safeguards put in place to confine the impact of the measure within reasonable bounds, and the extent of possible repercussions on the reputation of the person affected by the search. 10.     The Court has previously found violations of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of searches of homes where the authorities breached the national law requirements to the search procedure (see Avaz Zeynalov v.   Azerbaijan , nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14, § 81, 22 April 2021, and Kuzminas v. Russia , no. 69810/11, §§ 17-20, 21 December 2021). 11.     Furthermore, the Court has found a search to be unjustified under Article 8 of the Convention where the authorities failed to demonstrate (a) that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that the commission of crimes imputed to applicants or third people had occurred, (b) that there was evidence capable of corroborating those suspicions and (c) that the relevant evidence could be found in that regard at the premises to be searched (see, for instance, Aliyev v. Azerbaijan , nos. 68762/14 and 71200/14, §   184, 20   September 2018; Kruglov and Others v. Russia , nos. 11264/04 and 15   others, § 127, 4 February 2020, and Kuzminas , cited above, § 25). In cases where the authorities carried out urgent searches without prior judicial review, the Court considered it crucial for the authorities to also set out pressing circumstances justifying the recourse to such an urgent procedure (see Tortladze v. Georgia , no. 42371/08, § 64, 18 March 2021, and Kuzminas , cited above, §§ 23-24). 12.     The Court also reiterates that in a number of previous Russian cases it was the vagueness and excessively broad terms of search warrants giving the authority executing them unrestricted discretion in determining the scope of the search that were considered to constitute the decisive element for the finding of a violation of Article 8 (see Misan v. Russia , no. 4261/04, § 60, 2   October 2014, Kruglov and Others , cited above, § 127, with further references). 13.     Finally, as noted above, another decisive aspect in the Court’s assessment of the necessity of an interference are the procedural safeguards available to an applicant. The first and foremost among them is the guarantee of review by a judge or other independent and impartial decision-making body capable to examine the existence of relevant and sufficient reasons for the search and its compatibility with the legal requirements (see Avanesyan v. Russia , no. 41152/06, §§ 30-34, 18 September 2014, and Kruglov and Others , cited above, §§ 134-35). 14.     In its judgments concerning searches of homes in Russia (see, for instance, Smirnov v. Russia , no. 71362/01, 7 June 2007; Kolesnichenko v.   Russia , no. 19856/04, 9 April 2009; Avanesyan , cited above; Misan , cited above; Yuditskaya and Others v. Russia , no. 5678/06, 12 February 2015; Kruglov and Others , cited above; and Kuzminas , cited above) the Court has found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention due to the above-mentioned defects. 15.     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. 16.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   8 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 17.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.   32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning placement of defendants in a metal cage during court hearings; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and “speediness” of review of lawfulness of pre-trial detention; Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§   73 ‑ 83, 10 March 2009, concerning secret surveillance conducted by the police without judicial authorisation; and Radzhab   Magomedov v.   Russia , no. 20933/08, §§   80-84, 20   December 2016, concerning the refusal on the part of the domestic authorities to disclose a surveillance authorisation to the applicant). Remaining complaints 18.     Some applicants also made additional complaints under Articles 6, 10 and 13 of the Convention related to the searches or their consequences. However, having regard to the facts of the case and the findings under Article   8 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised by the applicants and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §   156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 19.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers that the finding of a violation in application no.   4018/22 will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction (see Ivanov and Others v. Russia   [Committee], nos.   44363/14   and 2 others, §   12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v.   Russia   [Committee], nos.   26895/14   and 2 other applications, §   13, 15   September 2022). It further finds reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants (compare, in particular, Misan, cited above, § 70). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful search and other complaints raised under the well ‑ established case-law of the Court (see the appended table) admissible and decides that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful search; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in application no.   4018/22; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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 Other complaints   under the well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant /household (in euros) [1]     53989/17 17/07/2017 Boris Semenovich FRIDMAN 1951 Morev Aleksandr Nikolayevich St Petersburg search in the applicant’s house conducted as part of the criminal proceedings against G. 09/02/2017, Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg 07/03/2017; on 02/05/2017 the St   Petersburg City Court upheld the decision of the District Court on appeal 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     64813/17 21/08/2017 Nikolay Vyacheslavovich SAVELYEV 1993 Stupin Yevgeniy Viktorovich Moscow "Urgent" search of the applicant’s flat within the framework of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charges of drug dealing 12/12/2016, Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow 11/12/2016; on 27/02/2017 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of the District Court on appeal no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation post factum judicial authorisation of the search, no justification provided as regards the urgency or necessity to carry out a search without a prior judicial authorisation (Kuzminas v.   Russia, no.   69810/11, 21   December 2021)   7,500     5338/20 10/12/2019 Aleksey Aleksandrovich KOLBOV 1988 Chumak Nikita Vladimirovich Moscow Search of a residential flat     16/04/2019 investigator 16/04/2019 judicial review of the court order of 18/04/2019 authorizing the search, appeal 10/06/2019   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 sufficient reasons to justify the urgent search, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no sifting procedure of the electronic data The applicant, an investigator with FSB at the relevant time, was charged with bribery. The domestic courts reviewed the investigator’s decision to conduct the search ex post facto. The final relevant decision was taken by the Moscow City Court on 03/09/2019. Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Second Western Circuit Military Court, Appeal Military Court; court hearings from 27/05/2019 to 26/02/2021,     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Second Western Circuit Military Court, 01/10/2020 Appeal Military Court, 29/10/2020,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - in vans and transit cells from 13/06/2019 to 26/02/2021, overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient natural light 9,750     41191/21 01/08/2021 Andrey Sergeyevich VAGANOV 1974 Yevgeniy Sergeyevich YEROFEYEV 1987   Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich St Petersburg Residence house search 19/07/2019 Investigator, 21/09/2021 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow 19/07/2019 Search, appeal against the manner of the search under Art.   125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Final decision – 01/02/2021, Moscow City Court. 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     42357/21 22/07/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich SEREDENKO 1989 Nakonechnyy Andrey Petrovich Moscow Search (inspection) of the applicant’s flat The search (inspection) was conducted by an investigator in the absence of a judicial authorisation 12/01/2021, final decision was taken by the Volgograd Regional Court on 15/06/2021 no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorization the applicant’s complaint under Art. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed without consideration by the courts at two levels of jurisdiction. According to the courts’ reasoning, the applicant was to raise the complaint within the framework of the criminal proceedings against him         7,500     50365/21 22/09/2021 Household Marina Vladimirovna ZHELEZNYAKOVA 1965   Aleksandr Vasilyevich ZHELEZNYAKOV 1961   Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Search of a flat 05/02/2021 Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok 06/02/2021, 23/03/2021 Primorye Regional Court 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), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no sifting procedure of the electronic data                 7,500     50378/21 22/09/2021 Household Gennadiy Borisovich SHULGA 1980   Natalya Vladimirovna SHULGA 1981   Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Search of the applicants’ flat as part of the criminal investigation against unidentified perpetrators 05/02/2021, Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok 06/02/2021, final decision on the matter was taken by the Primorye Regional Court on 23/03/2021 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 evidence supporting the search authorization The regional department of the interior opened criminal investigation on the charges of wilful blocking of transport communications. According to the official version, unidentified persons organised, by means of Internet communications, a gathering. The participants of the gathering blocked the street and, as a result, public buses and ambulances could not follow their routes. The applicant was suspected to be one of the organisers of the gathering. The purpose of the search was to find (1) electronical devices used to document the gathering, (2) documents pertaining to the crime and (3) other objects and documents necessary to establish the circumstances of the case.   7,500     1556/22 17/12/2021 Vladimir Viktorovich GUKOV 1974 Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog search under the Operational-Search Activities Act, applicant’s house 22/08/2021, Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don 23/08/2021, the court order was not amenable to appeal no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorization, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search   Art. 8 (1) - secret surveillance - The applicant’s phone conversations were intercepted without any reasonable limits. Interceptions authorised on 26/05/2021, 08/06/2021, 06/07/2021, 14/07/2021, 20/07/2021, 30/07/2021, 10/08/2021, 19/08/2021 by the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don; Specific defects: the use of “surveillance” or “operative experiment” measures not accompanied by sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness (”quality of law”), the applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of interception of phone communications   9,750     2196/22 07/12/2021 Gennadiy Andreyevich KOLOTUKHIN 1970 Kanayev Valeriy Viktorovich Diveyevo Search under the Code of Criminal Procedure; in the applicant’s house 11/06/2021, Diveyevskiy District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region 18/06/2021, final decision on the matter was taken by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 16/08/2021 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), particular circumstances: manner of the search, 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 reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search     7,500   4018/22 21/12/2021 Aleksandr Gennadyevich KRUGLOV 1976     search of the applicant’s flat 30/07/2021, Samarskiy District Court of Samara 26/08/2021; final decision on the matter was taken by the Samara Regional Court on 04/10/2021 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 the court authorised the search to discover "materials of extremist nature" and other objects and materials which could have been important for the criminal investigation against unidentified perpetrators on the charges of public calls for extremist activities   Finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction   7855/22 22/01/2022 Yuriy Andreyevich KOLOTUKHIN 1959 Kanayev Valeriy Viktorovich Diveyevo search of the applicant’s flat 11/06/2021, Diveyevskiy District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region 18/06/2021; Voznesenskiy District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region, 26/10/2021; Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 20/12/2021 no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no special safeguards for lawyers: no presence of independent observers     7,500   18825/22 19/03/2022 Pavel Valeryevich ROMANOV 1981     search of the applicant’s flat 24/12/2021, Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary 09/01/2022; Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary, 28/01/2022; Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 01/03/2022 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) The search was conducted as part of the criminal investigation against the applicant’s former wife   7,500   28805/22 05/09/2022 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich TETERIN 1979 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Search of the applicant’s flat as part of the criminal investigation 28/04/2022, Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic 29/04/2022, final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 10/06/2022 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: applicant not a suspect the criminal investigation was opened against unidentified perpetrators on the charges of false report of terrorism, according to the search warrant, the purpose of the search was to find objects which might be important for the criminal investigation, as claimed by a police officer in the relevant report   7,500   35117/22 28/06/2022 Anna Valentinovna KIRICHENKO 1975 Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog urgent search in the applicant’s house 15/11/2021, investigator’s order 16/11/2021, Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow, 22/11/2021; Moscow City Court, 29/03/2022 particular circumstances: manner of the search, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no sifting procedure of the electronic data, 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) The search was conducted in the applicant’s house as part of the criminal investigation in connexion with her ex-husband’s alleged involvement in tabaco smuggling. The ex-husband is registered in the applicant’s house. According to the applicant, he lives elsewhere. The applicant lives in the house together with her minor children.   7,500   36676/22 13/07/2022 Tatyana Viktorovna SPORYSHEVA 1976 Gak Irina Vladimirovna Rostov-on-Don search of the applicant’s flat 11/03/2022, Pervomayskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don 13/03/2022; Rostov Regional Court, 18/04/2022   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), no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no sifting procedure of the electronic data, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: lawyer not allowed to assist the applicant during the search The search was conducted based on the assumption of the applicant’s awareness about the suspect R.’s criminal activity (he was charged with “rehabilitation of Nazism”) and possible presence of objects related to the said offence in her flat, According to the applicant she has never met R.   7,500   38201/22 23/07/2022 Igor Khasanovich ISLAMOV 1976 Dvoryak Vladimir Gennadyevich Abakan Search of the applicant’s flat 17/11/2021, investigator 18/11/2021; Minusinsk Town Court,19/11/2021. On 28/12/2021 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 19/11/2021 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. On 18/01/2022 the Minusinsk Town Court found the search in compliance with law; on 03/03/2023 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal (received by post on 27/03/2022; the applicant attended the relevant hearing). no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation, 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 The applicant was charged with fraud.   7,500   42000/22 16/08/2022 Yevgeniy Artemovich SAUTIN 2004 Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich Moscow search in the applicant’s flat 04/03/2022, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir 25/03/2022, final decision on the matter was taken by the Vladimir Regional Court on 04/05/2022 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: applicant not a suspect The search was authorised as part of the criminal investigation in connection with “a no war” graffiti made under the bridge in Vladimir. The applicant worked for an internet media site that posted the photograph of the graffiti.   7,500   43090/22 17/08/2022 Daniil Sergeyevich BOSTYAKOV 2001     search of the applicant’s house 27/05/2022, the investigator’s decision of 31/05/2022, Pskovskiy District Court authorised the search 27/05/2022; final decision by the Pskov Regional Court, 13/07/2022 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, 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 applicant’s father was suspected of having committed a drug related offence   7,500   55513/22 08/11/2022 (4 applicants) Household Elvira Ilyasovna SHAMSUTDINOVA 1979   Ruslan Azatovich SHAMSUTDINOV 2014   Aisha Azatovna SHAMSUTDINOVA 2008   Alla Azatovna SHAMSUTDINOVA 2004       search of the applicants’ house 11/03/2020, investigator 11/03/2020, on 08//05/202 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ufa found that the search of the applicants’ house was unlawful. Subsequently, the applicants’ civil claims were granted in part. They were awarded RUB   100,000 as non-pecuniary damage, final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 28/07/2022 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), no special safeguards for lawyers: no special instructions by a judge regarding privileged materials     7,500   12082/23 07/03/2023 Elsa Rinatovna NABIULLINA 1988 Seleznev Stanislav Aleksandrovich Samara search of the applicant’s house within the framework of the criminal investigation 11/08/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan 17/08/2022, final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 08/11/2022 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 reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search the search was conducted as part of the criminal investigation on the charges of public justification of terrorism   7,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.