CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sFBB1651C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } Communicated on 5 July 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 66460/12 Petro Petrovych DUBOVYCH against Ukraine lodged on 9 October 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Petro Petrovych Dubovych, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1944 and lives in Cherkasy. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 23   July 2007 the applicant’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 he 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 the applicant. On 30   July 2007 the applicant 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 21   February 2011 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. In June 2011 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Cherkasy Regional Police Department and the State Treasury seeking damages for the arbitrary search of his home and grounds. On 31 January 2012 the Prydniprovskyy District Court in Cherkasy rejected the applicant’s claim. It found that, while the search warrant had been issued based on a forged police report, it had never been annulled. Accordingly, there was no fault in the actions of the police officers who had carried out the search itself. Lacking the requisite of faulty intent for an action in tort, there was no basis in tort law for awarding any compensation to the applicant. The court also found no grounds to apply statutory rules for compensation based on strict liability. Finally, the court also stated that the claim had been lodged outside of the limitation period. On 28 March 2012 the Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal held that the limitation period for bringing the claim had not in fact expired, but upheld the first-instance court’s decision to reject the applicant’s claim for damages on substantive grounds. On 4   May 2012 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal on points of law. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article   8 of the Convention that his home and grounds were arbitrarily searched. 2.     He also complains under Articles   6 and 13 of the Convention about the unavailability of an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. 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 his 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 his disposal an effective remedy for his complaint under Article   8 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?