CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 28 September 2020 Published on 19 October 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 1976/19 Sergey Aleksandrovich OVCHARENKO against Russia lodged on 20 December 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a lawyer admitted to the Bar. The application concerns a search of the applicant’s professional premises carried out without special procedural safeguards despite the requirements of the recently amended Russian legislation on the matter (in particular, presence of an independent observer).     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     As regards the search of the applicant’s professional premises, was there an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, home and correspondence and, if yes, was it “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant afforded sufficient procedural safeguards against interference with professional secrecy (see Smirnov v. Russia , no. 71362/01, §§ 44 and 48, 7   June 2007; Kolesnichenko v.   Russia , no. 19856/04, §§ 31-35, 9   April   2009; Yuditskaya and Others v.   Russia , no. 5678/06, §§27-31, 12   February 2015; Kruglov and Others v. Russia , nos. 11264/04 and 15   others, §   132, 4   February 2020)?   2.     In respect of the applicant’s possessions seized during searches, has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?