CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 10 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s35B69855 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .s54452357 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9162AEA2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:35.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5DCE77A9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; 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 } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5AA3092B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s95770030 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s4F205613 { width:122.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KORNIYETS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 2599/16 and 2 others – see appended list)   JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Private life • Home • Applicants’ homes searched by investigators in urgent circumstances in the context of criminal proceedings • No prior judicial warrant • Assessment as to the existence of urgent circumstances made by investigators • Impossibility for applicants to seek a judicial examination of the lawfulness of and justification for the search • Retrospective judicial review triggered ex   officio by the investigator and conducted ex   parte without any possibility for the applicant to participate • Impossibility to appeal against a court’s retrospective validation of a search • Absence of thorough assessment of the circumstances of each case • No adequate and effective safeguards against arbitrariness • Interference not “in accordance with the law” Art 13 (+ Art 8) • Lack of an effective remedy Art 3 (substantive) • Inhuman and degrading treatment • Injury sustained by the second applicant while under the control of the police during the search in her home Art 3 (procedural) • Ineffective investigation • Serious deficiencies and overall length of more than seven years   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 10 July 2025   FINAL   10/10/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Korniyets and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Kateřina Šimáčková , President ,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Gilberto Felici,   Andreas Zünd,   Mykola Gnatovskyy,   Vahe Grigoryan , judges ,   and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   2599/16, 6904/16 and 12704/16) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four Ukrainian nationals, Mr Oleksandr Pavlovych Korniyets (“the   first   applicant”), Ms Tetyana Maksymivna Zhabo (“the second applicant”), Mr   Oleksandr Viktorovych Yashchyshen (“the third applicant”) and Ms   Olena Fedorivna Yashchyshena (“the fourth applicant”) (hereinafter “the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Ukrainian Government (“the   Government”) of some of the complaints under Articles 3 and 6 § 1 and of the complaints under Articles 8, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol no.   1 and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 17 June 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case principally concerns the applicants’ complaints under Article   8 of the Convention that police searches of their homes were unlawful and unjustified as they were made without a prior court order, and their complaints that they did not have an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 8, as required by Article 13. The case furthermore concerns the complaint of Ms Zhabo (application no. 6904/16) under Article   3 of the Convention that she was ill-treated by the police and that there was no effective investigation into that event. THE FACTS 2.     A list of the applicants and their details is set out in the Appendix. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   M.   Sokorenko, from the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. the first applicant ( Korniyets v.   Ukraine , application no. 2599/16) 5.     At the time of events in question, the first applicant was an officer of the Kyiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office. On 26 June 2015 a criminal investigation into a corruption related offence was instituted against him. The investigation was of a suspected conspiracy involving the recent receipt of a   150,000 United States dollars (USD) bribe. On 26 June 2015 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal authorised covert surveillance of the first applicant, which was conducted between 27 June and 5 July 2015. 6.     On 5 July 2015 the investigator from the General Prosecutor’s Office made an “urgent” search of the first applicant’s house in the presence of witnesses. In the course of the search over 120 items, in particular files and documents related to the applicant’s professional activities; property certificates; mobile telephones; other IT devices; paper documents and electronic information carriers; cash in various currencies; jewellery; sixty-five diamonds; firearms; knives; and ammunition were seized. 7.     On 6 July 2015 the investigator applied to the court seeking retrospective authorisation of the search. In support of his application, the investigator submitted that an urgent search had been necessary to ensure recovery of the bribe money and to secure evidence, given the first applicant’s expertise in investigative methods. 8.     On the same day the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv, relying principally on the investigator’s arguments and the results of the search, and referring to Articles 223 and 234 of the Code of Criminal Prosedure ("the   CCP”), retrospectively authorised the search, holding that it had been justified given the need to identify and register as much information as possible about the offence and that there had been a need to identify, seize and preserve the proceeds of a crime. The proceedings at the Pecherskyi   District Court of Kyiv were conducted in the absence of the first applicant and his defence lawyer. No appeal lay against that decision. 9.     On 5 and 12 November 2015 some of the items seized were returned to the first applicant. The first applicant was dissatisfied with the retention of the other items and challenged the investigator’s failure to return them. On   1   December 2015 the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv rejected that claim as unsubstantiated. No appeal lay against that decision. 10.     On 4 January 2016, after the investigation had been completed, the indictment and case file were transferred to the trial court for examination. According to the information available to the Court, the criminal proceedings against the first applicant are still pending at the trial court. the second applicant ( ZHABO v.   Ukraine , application no. 6904/16) The search 11.     At the time of events the second applicant was the head of the Poltava regional centre of medical and social examination ( Полтавський обласний центр медико-соціальної експертизи ). 12.     On 18 April 2015 the authorities instituted a criminal investigation into a corruption related offence involving the second applicant. In the course of the investigation the police discovered, apparently via covert surveillance, that on 29 July 2015 a bribe of USD 300 had been paid to her. 13.     On the evening of 29 July 2015, Poltava regional police officers searched the second applicant’s car and house. Cash in various currencies (equivalent to over 30,000 euros (EUR)); several IT devices and electronic information carriers; documents related to the applicant’s professional activities; firearms and ammunition were seized. 14.     The next day the investigator applied to the court seeking retrospective authorisation of the search. On 31 July 2015 the Oktyabrskyi   District Court of Poltava granted the investigator’s application under Articles 233 and 234 of the CCP. The court held that the search had been required for the hot pursuit of a suspect and to preserve property. No   further reasons for the court’s decision were provided. The proceedings at the Oktyabrskyi District Court of Poltava were conducted in the absence of the second applicant or her defence lawyer. No appeal lay against that decision. 15.     On 21 September and 15 October 2015 some of the items were returned to the second applicant. 16.     On 19 March 2018 the criminal investigation into the corruption related offence was terminated because the constituent elements of an offence were absent. Alleged ill-treatment of the second applicant during the search on 29 July 2015 and the ensuing investigation 17 .     According to the second applicant, at 10.30 p.m. on 29 July 2015 about twenty men in balaclavas forcefully entered her garden and started searching her house. They refused to identify themselves and refused her request to be allowed to call a lawyer. During the search she was not allowed to leave the room when she needed to drink water or take the medication she had been prescribed following recent heart surgery. One of the men punched her in the face and pushed her in the chest demanding that she sit still and make no phone calls. At 1.45 a.m. on 30 July 2015 an ambulance was called, and the second applicant was hospitalised and subsequently diagnosed as suffering from a transitory ischaemic attack, a closed cerebral injury, and a contusion to her right ear. An additional forensic examination performed on 5 December 2016 confirmed that the applicant had sustained a contusion to her right ear. 18.     On 31 July 2015 the second applicant submitted a formal application to the police complaining that the search of her house and car had been unlawful and that she had been ill-treated in the course of the search. In a letter of 1 September 2015 the investigating authorities informed the applicant that her complaint had not contained circumstances constituting a crime. On 25 September 2015 the Oktyabrskyi District Court of Poltava obliged the authorities to open an investigation into the second applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment. 19 .     Thereafter, the investigation was discontinued, reopened by court decisions on appeal by the applicant and discontinued again many times on the basis of standard phrasing, without any indication that the deficiencies identified by the courts had been addressed in the resumed investigation. In particular, the domestic courts found it established that a contusion to the applicant’s right ear had been duly noted following the police search of 29   July 2015 but the origin of that injury had not been investigated. They also found that the testimonies given by the police officers participating in the search had not been thoroughly analysed and compared with the second applicant’s testimony. 20.     On 5 September 2022 the investigator again discontinued the investigation because the constituent elements of a crime were absent. The   investigator’s reasoning did not differ from the reasoning of the previous decisions which had been quashed by the domestic courts. According to the information available to the Court, the second applicant did not challenge the decision of 5 September 2022. the third and the fourth applicants ( YASHCHYSHEN   and YASHCHYSHENA v. Ukraine , application no. 12704/16) 21.     At the relevant time the third applicant was a law enforcement officer. The available material does not contain information about the occupation of the fourth applicant, the wife of the third applicant. 22.     On 25 August 2015 at around 7 p.m. the police were informed that someone was shooting with a firearm from the window of apartment building no. 12 on Peremohy Avenue in Kyiv. 23.     Police patrol officers arrived on site at 8.07 p.m. They found the third applicant on the stairs of the building, arrested him and handcuffed him. Then   they escorted him to his flat (“the first flat”), took his keys out of his pocket, entered the first flat and conducted an “inspection”, in the course of which firearms and ammunition were found. There were no witnesses or other persons present. No report was made. 24 .     The “inspection” finished at approximately 8.20 p.m. An investigator and officers of the Kyiv Shevchenkivskyi district police arrived later the same evening and carried out a formal search of the first flat in accordance with the   provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ammunition, an assault rifle, a pistol, a firearm licence, SIM (telephone subscriber identity module) cards, a hand-grenade, and items found by the police in the course of the earlier “inspection” were seized. During that search operation it was established that the third applicant had an alternative residence. The   investigator ordered it to be searched immediately as various items relevant to the case could potentially be there. The third applicant was then escorted to the police station and a report on his arrest was drawn up. The   report indicated that the search had lasted from 8.30 p.m. to 11.40 p.m. 25 .     On the same day, 25 August 2015, from 22.28 to 23.25, a search of another flat at Zolotoustivska street in Kyiv (“the second flat”), which was occupied by both applicants, was carried out by another district police investigator. In the course of the search, which was carried out in the presence of the fourth applicant, payment and discount cards, documents related to the third applicant’s professional activity as a security agent and documents related to his other activities were seized. 26 .     On 25 August 2015 at 11.49 p.m. information about the shooting was officially registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations. A   criminal investigation into a murder was launched against the third applicant. Subsequently the charges against him were reclassified into a breach of public order with use of firearms. 27 .     On 26 August 2015 an investigator applied to the court seeking retrospective authorisation of the search of the first flat. In support of the urgent search, the investigator submitted that it had been necessary to identify the person who was suspected of having carried out the shooting and to obtain his ID documents, firearms, and ammunition. The investigator also said that after the police entered the first flat, the applicant was identified and arrested there, and the firearms and ammunition were discovered and seized. 28.     On 26 August 2015 an investigator applied to the court seeking authorisation of the search of the second flat. In support of the urgent search, the investigator submitted that it had been necessary to obtain access to the first applicant’s ID documents, firearms, and ammunition. 29 .     On 26 August 2015 the searches of both flats that had been carried out on 25 August 2015 were retrospectively authorised by two separate decisions of Judges V.T. and O.R. of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv. The   decision relating to the search of the first flat stated that the search had been justified by the hot pursuit of the third applicant and because the items found in the first flat could be relevant to the pre-trial investigation. The   Government did not provide the Court with a copy of the court decision authorising the search of the second flat. 30 .     The applicants challenged the court decision authorising the search of the first flat. Their appeals were rejected by the Kyiv City Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court on 12 May 2017 and 19 April 2018 respectively because, under the domestic legislation, court decisions validating a search in urgent circumstances were not subject to appeal. 31.     The applicants filed criminal, constitutional and disciplinary complaints arguing that the two searches authorised by the courts had been unlawful and disproportionate and that the “inspection” of the first flat by the police patrol officers (see paragraph 19 above) had amounted to a search within the meaning of the legislation, but which had remained unrecorded and unauthorised. 32 .     The investigation into the applicants’ criminal complaints about the unlawful police patrol officers’ “inspection” of the first flat was terminated several times by the investigator because of the lack of the constituent elements of an offence and then resumed following a court finding that the   investigation had been incomplete. In the course of the investigation the   police patrol officers were questioned. They said that after they had arrested the third applicant on 25 August 2015 (see paragraph 19 above) they had then entered the first flat in order to search it. According to the Government, that criminal investigation is still ongoing. 33 .     On 8 June 2018 the Higher Council of Justice (HCJ) examined the   applicants’ disciplinary complaint against Judge O.R., who had authorised the search of the second flat (see paragraph 29 above). The HCJ found that Judge O.R. had failed to make a thorough assessment of the   investigator’s application for authorisation of the search, in particular whether there had been legal grounds for entering the applicants’ second flat without authorisation. The HCJ took disciplinary proceedings against Judge O.R., resulting in a reprimand. According to the Government, that decision was not appealed against. 34 .     The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court seeking to declare unconstitutional Article 309 of the CCP as it did not include, in the exhaustive list of court decisions that are subject to appeal, court orders authorising a search. On 10 September 2018 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ constitutional complaint holding the following: “... In substantiating [his complaint the applicant] argues that the appellate review of court orders authorising a search is the only mechanism for the protection of the right to inviolability of home. In addition, [the applicant] considers that the court order [authorising a search of his home] was the result of the judge’s mistake which could not be corrected under the [impugned] legal provision [Article 309 of the CCP]. Therefore, the substance of the applicant’s arguments about the unconstitutionality of Article 309 of the CCP is the applicant’s suggestions and interpretation of the relevant provision of the CCP, but these elements cannot be accepted as a substantiation of its unconstitutionality. In addition, [the applicant] sets out considerations regarding deficiencies in the rules regarding the holding of a preliminary hearing [by the trial court] and argues that the CCP does not provide for a remedy against an unlawful search. As the Constitutional Court noted on many occasions, resolving issues of legislative lacunae is outside its jurisdiction. ...”   35.     According to the Government, the criminal proceedings against the   third applicant are pending before the trial court. There is no indication that any criminal investigation has been instituted against the fourth applicant. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE 36.     The relevant provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine read as follows: Article 30 “Everyone shall be guaranteed the inviolability of his or her home. Any entry into, examination of or search of a person’s home or other possessions shall not be permitted other than pursuant to a court decision for which reasons are given. In urgent cases connected with saving human life or the preservation of property or in hot pursuit of criminal suspects, the law may provide for a different procedure for entering, examining or searching a person’s home or other possessions.” 37.     The   relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the   CCP”) read as follows: Article 13. Inviolability of a Person’s Home or Other Property “1. Entering into a person’s home or interference with other property to inspect it or to conduct a search is prohibited without authorisation from a court, giving reasons, except where provided for by this Code.” Article 233. Entering into a Person’s Home or Interference with Other Property 1. No one shall have the right to enter a person’s home or to interfere with property for any purpose, except with the voluntary consent of the owner or pursuant to a decision of an investigating judge, except as set out in part three of this Article. 2. A person’s home means any premises that is in a person’s permanent or temporary possession, regardless of its purpose and legal status, and is adapted for the permanent or temporary residence of individuals, and includes all fixtures and fittings of such premises. Premises specially designed for the detention of persons whose rights are restricted by law are not considered to be homes. Other property means a vehicle, a parcel of land, a garage, other buildings or premises for household, service, economic, industrial and other purposes, and so on. 3. An investigator or prosecutor has the right to enter a person’s home or deal with other property without prior court authorisation only in urgent circumstances related to the saving of life or protection of property or when in hot pursuit of persons suspected of committing a crime. In this case, the prosecutor or investigator, in agreement with the prosecutor, must file an application for a search warrant with the investigating judge immediately after the event. The investigating judge shall consider such an application in accordance with the requirements of Article 234 of this Code, checking, among other things, whether there were grounds for entering the person’s home or dealing with her or his other property without the authorisation of an investigating judge. If the prosecutor refuses to approve a search warrant for the investigator or the investigating judge refuses to grant the search warrant, the evidence found as a result of such a search is inadmissible, and the information obtained shall be destroyed in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 255 of this Code. Article 234. Search of a house “1. A search shall be conducted to identify and record information about the circumstances of a criminal offence, to find the instrument of the criminal offence or property obtained through the commission of the offence, and to locate wanted persons. 2. The search shall be conducted as authorised by the decision of the investigating judge. 3. If it is necessary to conduct a search, the investigator in agreement with the prosecutor or the prosecutor shall file a respective motion with the investigating judge, which shall contain information on: 1) the name of the criminal proceedings and the case number; 2) a brief summary of the circumstances of the criminal offence in connection with the investigation of which the application has been filed; 3) the legal classification of the criminal offence and a reference to the article (or   part   of the article) of the law of Ukraine creating criminal liability for the offence; 4) the grounds for the search; 5) the dwelling or other property of the person or the part of the dwelling or other property of the person in which it is planned to carry out the search; 6) the name of the person who owns the dwelling or other property and the name of the person in actual possession of it; 7) the objects, documents or persons to be searched for. The application must also be accompanied by originals or copies of documents and other materials with which the prosecutor or investigator substantiates the arguments in the application, as well as an extract from the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations in respect of the criminal proceedings within which the application is filed. 4. The search warrant application shall be dealt with by the court on the day it is received and the court will hear the investigator or prosecutor. 5. The investigating judge shall dismiss the application for a search warrant unless the prosecutor or investigator proves that there are sufficient grounds to believe that: 1) a criminal offence has been committed; 2) the objects and documents to be searched for are relevant to the pre-trial investigation; 3) the information contained in the objects and documents may be admissible as evidence during the trial; 4) the objects, documents or persons sought are located in the dwelling or other possession of the person specified in the application.” THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 38.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 39.     The applicants complained that the search and seizure operations carried out at their homes without a warrant had been unlawful, arbitrary and not necessary in a democratic society. They relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Admissibility 40 .     The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as they had not brought civil proceedings claiming compensation for the alleged irregularities. Alternatively, the Government submitted that the applicants’ complaints were premature given the continuing criminal proceedings against them in the domestic courts. They   furthermore argued that the complaints of the third and the fourth applicants about the unlawful entry of the first flat by the police ( Yashchyshen   and Yashchyshena v. Ukraine , application no. 12704/16) were premature given that the criminal investigation into the alleged abuse of power by the patrol officers while conducting the search had not yet concluded (see   paragraph 32 above). 41.     The applicants contested those arguments. In particular, the first   applicant argued that the domestic legislation did not allow him to challenge or seek review of the lawfulness of a search without warrant. He furthermore submitted that he had complained to the trial court at a preliminary hearing about the unlawfulness of the search without warrant, but his complaints had been ignored. He added that the Compensation Act referred to by the   Government could not be an effective tool in his case as the   criminal proceedings against him were still pending at the domestic level. The   third and the fourth applicants said that the domestic remedy referred to by the Government could not be effective in their case as compensation under the Compensation Act could be awarded only where a court had found that a search was unlawful. They added that the domestic legislation had given them no opportunity to participate in the proceedings for the retrospective authorisation of the search. 42.     The Court notes that the searches in question have not been found unlawful at the domestic level and it was therefore not open to the applicants to challenge their lawfulness as the domestic legislation gives persons whose homes have been searched no opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of a court order retrospectively authorising a search (see paragraph 30 above). The   applicants could not therefore have had a reasonable expectation that their civil claims would have any prospect of success. The Government referred to the provisions of the Compensation Act as a basis on which the applicants could have obtained compensation, but did not explain how application of that Act could have been effective in practice given that compensation could be awarded under that Act only where a court had found that the authorities had been in breach of domestic law. The Government’s first objection is therefore dismissed. 43 .     The Court furthermore notes that the criminal investigation in the second applicant’s case ( Zhabo v. Ukraine , application no. 6904/16) was terminated on 19 March 2018 because the constituent elements of an offence were not present. It remains unclear whether the applicant was entitled to institute compensation proceedings under the Compensation Act (see   Dubovtsev and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 21429/14 and 9 others, § 48, 21   January 2021) and, if so, whether the question regarding specifically the impugned search could have been raised in such proceedings. It is therefore far from certain that their outcome could affect the applicant’s victim status (see Vadym Melnyk v. Ukraine , nos. 62209/17 and 50933/18, § 91, 16   September 2022 and further references therein). In any event, the Court observes that the scope of its review of the applicant’s compliance with the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is limited by the Government’s objections (see Yordanov v.   Bulgaria , no. 56856/00, § 76, 10 August 2006, with further references). Since the Government did not claim that after the termination of the criminal investigation the second applicant was entitled to redress that would mean she had lost her victim status, the second applicant’s complaint cannot be rejected by the Court on the ground that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. 44.     The Court further notes that the Government have not explained in what regard the fact that the criminal proceedings against the first and the third applicants are still pending is relevant to their complaints, which concern specific searches. In any event, the Court notes that those proceedings have been pending at the preliminary investigation and the trial stages for over nine years and the Government have not pointed to any relevant developments. 45.     The remaining objections of the Government are therefore dismissed. 46.     The Court further notes that it is not in dispute between the parties that all flats at issue qualify as the respective applicants’ homes and finds that Article 8 of the Convention was applicable. The applicants’ complaints are neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions 47.     The applicants submitted that the interference with their Article   8   rights had been unlawful, unnecessary in a democratic society and unjustified. The first applicant furthermore added that the domestic legislation regarding searches without a warrant had been insufficiently clear and precise in defining the “urgent circumstances” which could justify a search without warrant and the scope and limits of the powers of an investigator or a prosecutor to conduct the search. The court’s decision retrospectively validating the search did not provide a sufficient safeguard against abuse as no sufficient reasons for the decision were given and it did not contain specific reasons explaining the “urgent circumstances” surrounding that search. The third and the fourth applicant also argued that they had had no opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of the searches in the domestic courts as no provision had been made for such a challenge. 48.     The Government submitted that the intervention in the applicants’ homes had been made under Article 233 of the CCP. They argued that the domestic legislation was clear and foreseeable as regards the scope of and grounds for the retrospective validation of searches. 49.     The Government further submitted that the applicants had been afforded relevant procedural guarantees against arbitrariness. They referred in this connection to the case-law of the Supreme Court saying that it showed that it acted as a Court of Cassation in reviewing the reasonableness and proportionality of searches in the context of admissibility of evidence obtained thereunder and whether they had been justified and it analysed whether there had been the appropriate judicial scrutiny when searches were being retrospectively authorised. 50.     In particular, on 5 April 2023 in case no.   683/1200/18, the Supreme Court held that the only urgent circumstances justifying a search without warrant were those specified in Article 233 of the CCP, where they existed at the moment a dwelling was entered and where the urgency of the situation made it impossible for the relevant authority to obtain a court order in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the CCP. 51.     The Government also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court of 8 April 2021 in case no. 573/2028/19, in which it considered whether the reasons given for a search without a warrant sufficed to establish the existence of “urgent circumstances” within the meaning of Article 233 § 3 of the CCP. The investigators had said that they needed to find stolen items and the clothes worn by the perpetrator of a crime. The Supreme Court examined those reasons and found that they did not fall into the category of urgent circumstances. It held that the search should have been made under a prior court order. 52.     The Government furthermore stated that the case-law of the Supreme Court had clearly defined the scope of the urgent circumstances in which a search could be undertaken without prior court authorisation. Lastly, they submitted that the Supreme Court review of the lawfulness of the searches in the proceedings on points of law had been a sufficient guarantee against arbitrariness. The Court’s assessment 53.     The relevant general principles concerning searches and resulting interference with private life have been summarised in Tortladze v. Georgia , no. 42371/08, §§   55-58, 18 March 2021. In particular, for an interference with an applicant’s “home” or his or her “private life” to be in compliance with Article 8 it must be “in accordance with the law”, undertaken in pursuit of a “legitimate aim”, and “necessary in a democratic society” (see, for example, Paradiso and Campanelli v.   Italy   [GC], no.   25358/12, § 167, 24 January 2017; Roman Zakharov v.   Russia   [GC], no.   47143/06, § 227, ECHR 2015; Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg , no.   26419/10, § 40, 18 April 2013; and Kennedy   v.   the   United Kingdom , no.   26839/05, § 130, 18 May 2010). The wording “in accordance with the law” requires the impugned measure both to have some basis in domestic law and to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the Preamble to the Convention and inherent in the object and purpose of Article 8. The law must thus meet quality requirements: it must be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see   Roman Zakharov,   cited ab ove, §§ 228-230, with further references). Application of the above principles to the circumstances of the present case (i)       Whether there was an interference 54.     The parties agree that the searches of the first and the second applicants’ homes which were conducted on 5 and 29 July 2015 respectively in the context of criminal investigations constituted an interference with their private life. As regards the third and the fourth applicants’ cases, while acknowledging that the searches in the first and the second flats (see   paragraphs 24 and 25 above) also constituted interferences within the   meaning of Article 8, the Government do not distinguish between the   ”inspection” and the formal search (see paragraph 19 above). 55.     The Court observes with reference to the available material that shortly after the police officers had arrested the third applicant, they entered the first flat and performed “an inspection” in the course of which they found weapons. The Court notes that after the police officers had finished the   “inspection” of the first flat, an investigating group arrived and started performing a search. It may be that the “inspection” of the first flat mutated into a search so that there was a single search aimed at identifying the weapons allegedly used during the shooting. There is no doubt, in any event, that there was an interference with the third and fourth applicant’s right to respect for their home which started with the initial inspection and continued after the arrival of the investigation team. (ii)     Whether the interference was in accordance with the law 56.     Such an interference will be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention unless it can be justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 as being “in accordance with the law”, pursuing one or more of the legitimate aims listed therein, and being “necessary in a democratic society” in order to achieve the aim or aims concerned. 57.     The wording “in accordance with the law” requires not only that the disputed measure has some basis in domestic law, but also that the law is accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see   Azer   Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan , no.   3409/10, § 63, 22 July 2021). 58.     Where the authorities conduct a search of someone’s home, the domestic law must provide some protection for the individual against arbitrary interference with that person’s Article   8 rights. The domestic law must therefore be sufficiently clear in its terms and should include adequate information as to the circumstances and conditions in which public authorities are empowered to conduct searches (see Särgava v. Estonia , no.   698/19, § 87, 16 November 2021). Moreover, a search constitutes a serious interference with private life, home and correspondence and must accordingly be based on a “law” that is particularly precise. It is essential to have clear, detailed rules on the subject (see Saber v. Norway , no. 459/18, §   50, 17 December 2020). 59.     Furthermore, the Court must ensure that the relevant legislation and practice afford individuals adequate and effective safeguards against abuse; notwithstanding the margin of appreciation which the Court recognises the Contracting States have in this sphere, it must be particularly vigilant where the authorities are empowered under national law to order and effect searches without a judicial warrant (see Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria , no.   34529/10, § 220, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). 60.     The procedural safeguards available to the individual will be especially material in determining whether the respondent State has, when fixing the regulatory framework, remained within its margin of appreciation. In particular, the Court must examine whether the decision-making process leading to measures of interference was fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by Article 8 (see   Connors   v.   the   United Kingdom , no. 66746/01, § 83, 27 May 2004). What is required by way of safeguard will depend, to some extent at least, on the nature and extent of the interference in question (see Oleksandr Volkov v.   Ukraine , no.   21722/11, § 170, ECHR 2013). 61.     Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that “search in urgent circumstances” was governed by Article 233§   3 of the CCP and, therefore, had a basis in the domestic law. 62.     The Court observes that under Article 30 of the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 13 of the CCP, entering a person’s home or other property to conduct an inspection or search is permitted only with a court decision which gives reasons, except in urgent cases, on decision of an investigator or a prosecutor (Article 233 § 3 of the CCP). In such urgent cases, a search may be carried out without a warrant and must be validated after that by a judge (ibid). The above legal regime, which obviously aims at ensuring the effectiveness of criminal investigations in situations where timing is crucial, does not appear, as such, problematic under Article 8 of the Convention. 63.     The applicants considered that the law was not sufficiently precise in defining the concept of “urgent circumstances” and criticised the superficial manner in which the courts had validated the searches after they had been made. The Government pointed to Supreme Court judgments clarifying the concept of “urgent circumstances” but provided examples that postdate the events at issue. They also considered that the applicants had been afforded relevant procedural guarantees. 64.     The Court, having regard to the facts of the three cases before it and the parties’ submissions, considers that the main issue under Article 8 in the present case does not concern the level of precision in the relevant domestic provisions but the question whether, under the relevant legal regime and in practice in the applicants’ cases, the procedure and substantive approach of the domestic courts secured the requisite protection against arbitrariness. 65.     In particular, having regard to the fact that under the relevant le