CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6EC6BA2A { width:121.74pt; 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 51676/20 Anastasiya Valeryevna STARODUBOVSKAYA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19   June 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2   November 2020, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Ms M.O. Eysmont, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The applicant’s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the unlawful search were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW The Court notes from the outset that, in the present case, the application was lodged more than six months after the final decision in respect of the applicant’s grievances under Articles   8 and 18 of the Convention was taken (see the appended table). It must therefore ascertain whether the applicant complied with the six-month rule set out in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention. The Court further notes that, as regards applications introduced in 2020, the method of calculation of the six-month rule has been adjusted in order to handle the difficulties to which the global pandemic and widespread lockdown gave rise and to preserve the essence of the right of individual petition under Article   34 of the Convention. In particular, the six-month rule was exceptionally considered to have been suspended for three calendar months in total, whenever a calendar six-month period either started to run or, on the contrary, was due to expire at any time between 16 March and 15   June 2020 (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§   46-59, 1   March 2022). Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that neither the date of the introduction of the application nor the date of the expiration of the six-month time-limit fall within the above-mentioned period (16   March to 15 June 2020). The exceptional measure is therefore not applicable in the present case   (compare Kitanovska and Barbulovski v. North Macedonia , no. 53030/19, §   39-40, 9 May 2023; and Masse v. France (dec.), no.   47506/20, 25   March 2025). It follows that the application was lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 10 July 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Kovatcheva   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   8 of the Convention (unlawful search) 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 complaints 51676/20 02/11/2020 Anastasiya Valeryevna STARODUBOVSKAYA 1995   Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow Flat 12/11/2019 Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow 04/12/2019 03/02/2020 Moscow City 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) Art 18 - Application of restrictions only for prescribed purposes