CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 avril 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 16 April 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 47821/10 Ganna Yevgenivna DUBOVYCH against Ukraine lodged on 28 July 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Ganna Yevgenivna Dubovych, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Bilozirya together with P.D., her husband. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 23   July 2007 the applicant’s and P.D.’s house and grounds were searched by the police pursuant to a court warrant issued by the Cherkasy District Court on the same date on suspicion that P.D. could be engaged in drug dealing and trade in stolen goods. No suspicious items were found during the search operation and no criminal proceedings were ever instituted against P.D. On 30   July 2007 P.D. complained to the Cherkasy Regional Police Department that his household had been searched arbitrarily. On 24   September 2007 the Department, having conducted an internal inquiry, concluded that the documents submitted by the police to the court in order to obtain the search warrant had been falsified and the procedural rules concerning document filing in criminal cases had been grossly breached. It forwarded this conclusion to the Cherkasy District Prosecutor’s Office for deciding whether a criminal investigation into the relevant circumstances was warranted. On several occasions the Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings, these decisions having been quashed by the courts with reference to various procedural flaws, and the case-file materials were remitted for further inquiries. On 4   November 2010 the Prosecutor’s Office again took a decision not to institute criminal proceedings referring to the death of officer K., who was suspected by them of having falsified the materials, which served as basis for obtaining the search warrant. On 2   December 2009, 24   February and 14   May 2010 the Prydniprovskyy District Court in Cherkasy, the Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine respectively rejected the applicant’s civil claim for damages filed against the Prosecutor’s Office in connection with its alleged inactivity in investigating P.D.’s complaint. In December 2009 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Cherkasy Regional Police Department and the State Treasury seeking damages for the arbitrary search of her home and grounds. On 19   August 2010 the Sosnivskyy District Court in Cherkasy allowed the applicant’s claim in part, and awarded her UAH   1,500 in non ‑ pecuniary damage against the State Treasury. On 23   December 2010 the Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal quashed this judgment. It noted, in particular, that the search warrant issued by the court on 23   July 2007 had never been annulled and that in any event only the applicant’s husband and not the applicant herself could claim to be a victim of the disputed search. The applicant appealed on points of law, arguing, in particular, that both her husband and herself suffered from the search, as they shared the same home. On 22   April 2011 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal on points of law. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article   8 of the Convention that her home and grounds were arbitrarily searched. She also complained under Articles   6 and 13 of the Convention about the unavailability of an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 8. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the search operation conducted on 23   July   2007 amounted to an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life and home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article   8 §   2?   2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective remedy for her complaint under Article   8 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?