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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s1CA3A5A0 { width:34.66pt; display:inline-block } .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 } Published on 26 June 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no.   6519/21 Tatyana Georgiyevna MARTYNOVA against Russia and 8 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     6519/21 28/12/2020 Tatyana Georgiyevna MARTYNOVA 1963 Valeriy Valeryevich Volokh Moscow Search of the flat 16/07/2020, investigator, 17/06/2020 Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow   16/07/2020   Moscow City Court, 21/09/2020 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         25412/21* 16/04/2021 Ilya Vasilyevich ARISHCHENKOV 1988 Aleksandr Vasilyevich Artamonov Moscow Search of the flat 02/09/2020, investigator, 04/09/2020, Chertanovskiy District Court 02/09/2020   Moscow City Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on 01/12/2020 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 entrepreneur, who provides legal services (no evidence of being a Bar member). The investigation concerns Art. 159 § 4 of the Criminal Code (aggravated fraud). The Chertanovskiy District Court declared the lawfulness of the search ex post facto.       32407/21 05/06/2021 Roman Konstantinovich KAMENEV 1979 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Brester Krasnoyarsk Search under the OSAA, the applicant’s flat 09/12/2020, the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk date of the search -10/12/2020. The applicant filed a cassation appeal against the judgment of 09/12/2020 seeking the full review of the decision to issue a search warrant. On 17/02/2021 the 8th Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction upheld the decision of 09/12/2020. 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: no evidence supporting the search authorisation   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - a judicial decision authorising operational-search measures under the OSAA was not amenable to a review by a higher court and no other remedies in respect of this decision were available (see Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06, §§ 30-36, 18   September 2014)     32550/21* 27/05/2021 Ilya Valeryevich KUPTSOV 1989 Roman Mikhaylovich Kashirin Pskov Search of the flat 24/02/2021, Investigator of the Novgorod Region Department of the Federal Security Service, 02/03/2021 Novgorodskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region 25/02/2021   domestic courts declared ex post facto the lawfulness of the search. Novgorod Regional Court, 15/04/2021 no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: lawyer not allowed to assist the applicant during 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)         50368/21* 22/09/2021 Giya Enverovich KAKABADZE 1960 Dmitriy Vladimirovich Zubarev Vladivostok Search of the flat court search warrant of 05/02/2021 issued by the Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok 06/02/2021 the Primorye Regional Court, 23/03/2021 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         50369/21* 22/09/2021 Maksim Aleksandrovich KHOZYAYKIN 1986 Kseniya Nikolayevna KHOZYAYKINA 1985   Kira Maksimovna KHOZYAYKINA 2009 Dmitriy Vladimirovich Zubarev Vladivostok Search of the flat 05/02/2021 Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok 06/02/2021   Primorye Regional Court, 23/03/2021 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) The applicants are a human rights defender and his wife and daughter. Their flat was searched within criminal proceedings against participants of Otpuskay manifestations.       55440/21 26/10/2021 Yuliya Valeryevna KULIKOVA 1977 Denis Yevgenyevich Kozyrev Lipovitsy Search, of the offices rented by the applicant, under the Code of Criminal Procedure 14/04/2021, Investigator of the Volokolamsk Town Circuit, 26/04/2021 Volokolamsk Town Court of the Moscow Region 14/04/2021   the applicant complained to the domestic courts under article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Final - Moscow Regional Court, 24/06/2021 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 reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search         57275/21* 17/11/2021 Yevgeniya Eduardovna LITVINOVA 1960 Vitaliy Viktorovich Cherkasov St Petersburg Search of the flat 31/01/2021, investigator 31/01/2021 Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, 02/02/2021 St Petersburg City Court, 28/05/2021 no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, 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 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 conjunction with Article 8 related to the search     58638/21 10/11/2021 Yelena Anatolyevna GRECHINA 1975 Denis Anatolyevich Matyukhin Taganrog Search of the applicant’s flat 21/07/2021 Taganrog Town Court 06/08/2021 the decision of 21/07/2021 was not amenable to appeal 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 search authorisation.