CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juin 2021

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5CDAA1A0 { width:97.98%; border-collapse:collapse } .s40C22071 { width:7.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s8974C278 { width:31.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB6D26911 { width:27%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s26C0AB39 { width:18.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA24D7BD8 { width:15.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7B25C814 { width:7.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFAA796B5 { width:31.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1741BFC { width:27%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEFEAA334 { width:18.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s389C5BA4 { width:15.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 28 June 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 28539/10 AGORA and Others against Russia lodged on 7 April 2010 communicated on 7 June 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first applicant is an NGO providing legal assistance on human rights issues. It is based in Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan. The other three applicants (lawyers) work for that NGO. The application concerns a search and video surveillance of the applicants’ office in Kazan. The application also concerns the availability of effective remedies in respect of the above search and video surveillance. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     As regards the search of the applicants’ office, did the interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, home and correspondence pursue a legitimate aim, was it “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants afforded sufficient procedural safeguards against interference with professional secrecy (see Kruglov and Others v. Russia , nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, § 132, 4   February 2020)?   2.     As regards the video-surveillance of the applicants’ office, was there an interference with the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention? If so, did it pursue a legitimate aim, and was it “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, did the national law require the national courts to examine the issues of “proportionality” and “necessity in a democratic society” in respect of the searches of lawyers’ premises (see Keegan v. the United Kingdom , no.   28867/03, §§ 40-43, ECHR 2006 ‑ X)? Did the national courts assess the “proportionality” and “necessity in a democratic society” of the searches in the present cases?   APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. AGORA 2005 n/a Kazan 2. Ramil Khaidarovich AKHMETGALIYEV 1977 Russian Kazan 3. Pavel Vladimirovich CHIKOV 1978 Russian Kazan 4. Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA 1975 Russian Kazan