CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 26 février 2026

.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 } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; 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 } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s19646158 { width:117.75pt; 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 } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF VALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 2264/17 and 2 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 26 February 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Valov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President ,   Mateja Đurović,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 5 February 2026, 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 principally of the unlawful search. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     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 Dirdizov v. Russia , no.   41461/10, §§   101 ‑ 11, 27   November 2012, concerning the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons justifying pre-trial detention; Bykov v. Russia [GC], no.   4378/02, §§   73‑83, 10 March 2009, and Zubkov and Others v. Russia , nos.   29431/05 and 2 others, §§ 85-99, 7 November 2017, concerning interception of telephone communications; Avaz Zeinalov v. Azerbaijan , no. 37816/12 and   25260/14, §§   93-108, related to a search in a journalist’s home; and Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8   October 2019, concerning the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention). remaining complaints 12.     As regards applications nos.   2267/17 and 13850/23, in view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ remaining complaints under Articles 10 and 13 of the Convention (for similar approach see Valyuzhenich v. Russia , no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019). 13.     Mr Valov (application no.   2267/17) also raised other complaints under Articles   5 and 6 of the Convention. 14.     The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Misan, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 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 of the Convention concerning the unlawfulness of the searches and other complaints raised under the well ‑ established case-law of the Court, as indicated in the attached table, admissible, finds , as regards applications nos.   2267/17 and 13850/23, that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Articles   10 and 13 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of application no.   2267/17 inadmissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the unlawful searches; 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 (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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 February 2026, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 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 well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     2264/17 26/12/2016 Aleksandr Igorevich VALOV 1984   Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Search of the flat 19/01/2018, Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi 19/01/2018, appeal against the search order was dismissed by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 13/03/2018 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 applicant was charged with extortion Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - from 19/01/2018 to 26/12/2018; charged with extortion Defects: use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial,   Art. 8 (1) - secret surveillance - the courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”; the use of “surveillance” or “operative experiment” measures not accompanied by sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness (“quality of law”) The applicant learnt of the telephone tapping on 25 July 2018 during the study of the case file in his criminal case; the applicant’s ensuing complaints lodged against the court order of 26/07/2018 was dismissed without consideration on the merits,     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of the administrative arrest imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 9,750     81578/17 27/11/2017 Valeriya Ivanovna YELTARENKO 1994   Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich Moscow Urgent search of the flat in the absence of a judicial authorisation 08/04/2017, investigator with the Regional Investigation Committee 08/04/2017, complaint under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; final decision on the matter was taken by the Irkutsk Regional Court on 08/06/2017 no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/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) The applicant was a journalist; she was not provided with access to the investigator’s decision authorising the search Art. 10 (1) - Freedom of expression - Search conducted in the journalist’s home - wording of the order was clearly too broad to rule out that possibility and the impugned searches and seizures were disproportionate inasmuch as they enabled the investigating authorities to search for the applicant’s journalistic sources 7,500     13850/23 06/02/2023 Iskender Gabdrakhmanovich YASAVEYEV 1971   Seleznev Stanislav Aleksandrovich Samara Search of the summer cottage, residence and car 11/08/2022, Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan On 17/08/2022 the police searched Mr   Yasaveyev’s summer cottage, residence and car, and seized his laptops, smartphones and bank cards. On 26/08/2022 Mr Yasaveyev filed an appeal against the search warrant. On 07/10/2022 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic dismissed his appeal. 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: no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search In May 2022 a video showing protesters in Warsaw hurling red paint at the Russian ambassador to Poland was shared on social media. A criminal investigation was instituted in Russia on the charge of public justification of terrorism. On 08/08/2022 the Federal Security Service identified the applicant, a journalist, who had been designated a “foreign agent”, as a person of interest who might have shared the video.   4,750     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.