CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juin 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 12 June 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 40797/17 Janno SAAR against Estonia lodged on 1 June 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged unlawful deprivation of liberty of the applicant who was escorted, together with his business partner (co-owners of a law office), by armed Government officials to their office for a search on 16 August 2016 at 10 a.m. Unlike his partner, the applicant was not charged with an offence, he was however ordered not to leave the premises or use a computer or a telephone until 4.30 p.m. and he was only allowed to use the lavatory under the surveillance of an armed official. After the search he was asked to report to the police station to give a witness testimony. The applicant complains that he was deprived of his liberty without any legal basis in domestic law and that his detention could not be justified under the sub-paragraphs of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of his liberty on 16 August 2016 between 10   a.m. and 4.30 p.m.? If so, was that deprivation compatible with the purposes of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (having regard to the Court’s judgments in the cases of Kasparov v. Russia , no. 53659/07, 11   October 2016; M.A. v. Cyprus , no. 41872/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts) and Shimovolos v. Russia, no. 30194/09, 21 June 2011) , and in particular:   (a)     what was the legal basis for detaining the applicant? Was the detention in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law?   (b)     did the deprivation of liberty fall within sub-paragraphs (a) to   (f) of Article 5 § 1?   The Government are invited to submit copies of any relevant documents concerning the events of 16   August 2016, including in particular the search warrant and the search report.