CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 juin 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1601B0A7 { height:14.95pt } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Published on 26 June 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no.   13079/17 Olga Nikolayevna PROKAYEVA against Russia and 17 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 1 June 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention relating to unlawful search which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Misan v. Russia, no. 4261/04, 2 October 2014 and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, 4   February 2020).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful search) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Type of search Premises Date of the search authorisation Name of issuing authority Date of the search Means of exhaustion Specific defects Other relevant information Other complaints under well-established case-law     13079/17 31/01/2017 Olga Nikolayevna PROKAYEVA 1961 Igor Viktorovich Pechenev Lipetsk House search 22/09/2016, Gryazy Town Court of the Lipetsk Region 23/09/2016, the Lipetsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint concerning the authorisation of the search on 18/11/2016 no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion) The criminal case against the applicant was closed after the search had been conducted and brought no results       43826/17* 07/06/2017 Natalya Dmitriyevna NAZARETS 1966     House search 14/12/2016, Lechinskiy District Court of Vladivostok 25/01/2017-26/01/2017. Primorye Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint on 27/03/2017. The cassation appeal before the Primorye Regional Court was dismissed on 28/04/2017 no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search, particular circumstances: manner of the search The search was carried out at night despite the absence of any urgency; the applicant was not a suspect/ defendant in the criminal case; the search was conducted as part of a criminal case against the applicant’s son, whose official place of residence was not the applicant’s flat. The courts reasoned that the applicant’s flat was the defendant’s actual place of residence.       45890/17 13/06/2017 Nikolay Yuryevich BUGLAK 1962 Ivan Aleksandrovich Timofeyev Chita search under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant’s flat 12/07/2013, Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Chita 12/07/2013, judicial review of the decision to issue a search warrant, Zabaykalskiy Regional Court, 13/12/2016 (appellate court)   no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search     5518/18 16/01/2018 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich SILACHEV 1990 Elik Yevgenyevich Abdrashitov Orel Home search 03/10/2016, Apastovskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic 30/09/2016, Supreme Court Tatarstan Republic rejected the appeal complaint on 05/09/2017 no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion) The search was carried out early in the morning (between 5.15 to 6.20 a.m.), the applicant was not present during the search, his mother read and signed the relevant record. At the time of the search, the applicant was not officially a suspect. Subsequently the applicant was charged with theft (of cattle)       13664/18 12/03/2018 Vera Vladimirovna VOLKOVA 1967     Home search 24/03/2017 Moscovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod 22/03/2017; appeal decision on the search warrant - 28/11/2017, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court; on 22/01/2018 the Moskovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod dismissed the applicant’s complaint under Article 125 CCrP about the authorities’ unlawful actions during the search no special safeguards for lawyers: no special instructions by a judge regarding privileged materials, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion) The applicant is an attorney. The search was authorised against her husband who was suspected of committing large-scale fraud       43563/18 29/10/2016 Tatyana Aleksandrovna PASHKINA 1953     Home search 24/03/2016 Tsentralniy District Court of Sochi 25/03/2016, appeal against court’s authorisation (Krasnodar Regional Court 12/05/2016), cassation appeal (Krasnodar Regional Court, 29/09/2016) no special safeguards for lawyers: no special instructions by a judge regarding privileged materials, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search The applicant is a lawyer.       1720/19 24/12/2018 Konstantin Kazimirovich LUBNEVSKIY 1968   ZAO ROSSPETSKOMPLEKT 1900     search under the Operational-Search Activities Act, business premises 04/07/2018, Head of the Police Department in Krasnogorsk 06/07/2018, no remedies under the Russian law no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect the operational search activity allegedly covered a search and seizure which could have been conducted only within the framework of the criminal proceedings; no criminal proceedings in respect of the applicants were instituted Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search     1731/19* 17/12/2018 Nadezhda Aleksandrovna ABASHIDZE 1982     search under Code of Criminal Procedure, living premises (applicant’s flat) 15/05/2018, 18/05/2018, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar 22/05/2018, challenge of the judicial authorisation of the search to no avail (10/07/2018 - the Krasnodar Regional Court as a court of appeal) no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: minor severity of the offence, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion) the applicant was a mother of a new-born child (born on 27/11/2017); according to the applicant, on 30/12/2017 the investigator agreed to question the applicant at her place of residence Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - The applicant complains that she was taken to the police station for her questioning and was kept there between 10   a.m. and 1.15 p.m. on 22/05/2018 in the absence of summons. No written record of the detention. The applicant challenged the lawfulness of the police actions to no avail under Art.125 CCP with no success (final - the Krasnodar Regional Court, 07/08/2018)     2332/19 17/12/2018 Andrey Fedorovich PETROV 1975 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov Taganrog inspection conducted by Federal Security Service in the applicant’s house, car and land plot as an operative and search measure 18/10/2018, a judge of Leninskiy District Court in Rostov-on-Don 19/10/2018, no appeal no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion)   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search   3828/19* 09/01/2019 Aleksey Sergeyevich BZHEVSKIY 1984     search of the applicant’s home (the applicant resided in the flat under a lease agreement) 18/05/2018, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar On 11/07/2018 the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar returned the applicant’s appeal without consideration on the merits. No procedural decision was taken by the court. no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion)   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search   41757/19* 26/05/2019 Irina Aleksandrovna YANOVITSKAYA 1983     Search of the applicant’s flat in which she had an office 25/09/2018, Leninskiy District Court of Perm On 27/11/2018 the Perm Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 25/09/2018 no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no special safeguards for lawyers: no special instructions by a judge regarding privileged materials The applicant is an attorney Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - Th applicant complains of ineffectiveness of domestic remedies in respect of the search conducted in her apartment on 19/10/2018.   44389/19* 10/08/2019 Vitaliy Vladimirovich VAVILIN 1963 Sergey Vasilyevich Brovchenko Moscow a flat and a house, urgent search in the absence of judicial authorisation, as part of the criminal investigation against the applicant on the charges of embezzlement 14/11/2018, Investigator of Investigating Committee; authorised by the final decisions of the Moscow City Court of 11/02/2019 and 27/03/2019 31/11/2018; the final decisions recognising the lawfulness of the searches were taken by the Moscow City Court on 11/02/2019 and 27/03/2019 no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion)   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search   20144/20 25/02/2020 Aleksey Viktorovich KARPENKO 1976 Aleksey Valeryevich Ivanov Krasnodar lawyer’s office   26/06/2019 investigator’s order on urgent search 26/06/2019, 28/06/2019 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar; final decision: 05/09/2019 Krasnodar Regional Court no special safeguards for lawyers: no special instructions by a judge regarding privileged materials, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search   49653/21* 18/09/2021 Gleb Sergeyevich BOBARIKO 1991     house Decision of the investigator of 20/08/2020 20/08/2020; The applicant appealed against the decision of the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, 24/08/2020, contesting the lawfulness of the search. Moscow City Court dismissed his claims on appeal on 14/04/2021 particular circumstances: manner of the search, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: lawyer not allowed to assist the applicant during the search, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search The criminal case against the applicant was instituted on 06/12/2019 on suspicion of committing a fraud. The search was conducted at night. Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - from 21/08/2020 to 21/07/2021, Presnenskiy District Court, the Moscow City Court,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the appeal of 21/02/2021 against the detention order was examined on 22/03/2021   52582/21* 11/10/2021 Elik Yevgenyevich ABDRASHITOV 1978     Search of the house 16/07/2019, investigator for particularly important criminal cases of the Investigation Committee of the Republic of Tatarstan 16/07/2019, civil compensation claim (final - Supreme Court, 21/02/2022; RUB 50,000 awarded) no special safeguards for lawyers: no presence of independent observers, no special safeguards for lawyers: search conducted by the investigator without the court’s authorisation in circumstances that admitted of no delay On 19/07/2019, the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, reviewing the search order following the investigator’s notification, declared the search unlawful. Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train, van; 20/04/2021-11/05/2021; 0,26 sq. m. of personal space     53917/21* 18/10/2021   AND       54811/21* 18/10/2021     AND     56808/21* 18/10/2021 Household   Liliya Yuryevna TROTSENKO 1961     Yuriy Petrovich TROTSENKO 1961       Yekaterina Yevgenyevna TROTSENKO 1983 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov Taganrog 53917/21   House search (The applicant’s house was searched within criminal proceedings against her son.)   54811/21   House search (The applicant’s house was searched within criminal proceedings against his son)   56808/21   Search of the applicant’s home (It appears that the search was conducted as part of the criminal investigation against the applicant’s husband (tobacco smuggling by an organised group). 53917/21   23/08/2021 No court authorisation; the Operational-Search Activities Act         54811/21   23/08/2021 No court authorisation; the Operational-Search Activities Act         56808/21   No court authorisation 53917/21   24/08/2021; the applicant was not provided with a copy of the house search authorisation         54811/21   24/08/2021; the applicant was not provided with a copy of the house search authorisation         56808/21   24/08/2021   53917/21   no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation     54811/21   no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation     56808/21   no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect   53917/21   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search under the Operational-Search Activities Act   54811/21   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search under the Operational-Search Activities Act