CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 novembre 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Published on 27 November 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no.   53989/17 Boris Semenovich FRIDMAN against Russia and 19 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 2 November 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     53989/17* 17/07/2017 Boris Semenovich FRIDMAN 1951   Aleksandr Nikolayevich Morev St Petersburg search in the applicant’s house conducted as part of the criminal proceedings against G. 09/02/2017, Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg 07/03/2017 on 02/05/2017 the St   Petersburg City Court upheld the decision of the District Court on appeal 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)         64813/17* 21/08/2017 Nikolay Vyacheslavovich SAVELYEV 1993   Yevgeniy Viktorovich Stupin Moscow "Urgent" search of the applicant’s flat within the framework of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charges of drug dealing 12/12/2016, Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow 11/12/2016 on 27/02/2017 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of the District Court on appeal   no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation post factum judicial authorisation of the search, no justification provided as regards the urgency or necessity to carry out a search without a prior judicial authorisation (Kuzminas v. Russia, no. 69810/11, 21 December 2021)         5338/20* 10/12/2019 Aleksey Aleksandrovich KOLBOV 1988   Nikita Vladimirovich Chumak Moscow Search of a residential flat     16/04/2019 investigator 16/04/2019 judicial review of the court order of 18/04/2019 authorising the search, appeal decided on 10/06/2019 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 sufficient reasons to justify the urgent search, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no sifting procedure of the electronic data The applicant, an investigator with the FSB at the relevant time, was charged with bribery. The domestic courts reviewed the investigator’s decision to conduct the search ex post facto. The final relevant decision was taken by the Moscow City Court on 03/09/2019. Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Second Western Circuit Military Court, Appeal Military Court; court hearings since 27/05/2019 until 26/02/2021,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the judicial review of the search,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Second Western Circuit Military Court, 01/10/2020 Appeal Military Court, 29/10/2020;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - in vans and transit cells from 13/06/2019 to 26/02/2021, overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient natural light     41191/21* 01/08/2021 Household: Andrey Sergeyevich VAGANOV 1974   Yevgeniy Sergeyevich YEROFEYEV 1987   Maksim Vladimirovich Olenichev St Petersburg Residence house search 19/07/2019 Investigator, 21/09/2021 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow 19/07/2019 Search under the OSAA, appeal against the manner of the search under Art. 125 CCrP. Final – 01/02/2021, Moscow City Court 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         42357/21 22/07/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich SEREDENKO 1989   Andrey Petrovich Nakonechnyy Moscow Search (inspection) of the applicant’s flat The search (inspection) was conducted by an investigator in the absence of a judicial authorisation under the Operational-Search Activities Act (OSAA) 12/01/2021 final decision was taken by the Volgograd Regional Court on 15/06/2021 no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation the applicant’s complaint under Art. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed without consideration by the courts at two levels of jurisdiction. According to the courts’ reasoning, the applicant was to raise the complaint within the framework of the criminal proceedings against him Art. 6 (1) - denial of access to courts - The applicant’s complaints about the search were dismissed without consideration on the merits     50365/21* 22/09/2021 Household Marina Vladimirovna ZHELEZNYAKOVA 1965   Aleksandr Vasilyevich ZHELEZNYAKOV 1961   Dmitriy Vladimirovich Zubarev Vladivostok Search of a flat 05/02/2021 Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok 06/02/2021 23/03/2021 Primorye Regional Court 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), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no sifting procedure of the electronic data         50378/21* 22/09/2021 Gennadiy Borisovich SHULGA 1980   Natalya Vladimirovna SHULGA 1981   Dmitriy Vladimirovich Zubarev Vladivostok Search of the applicants’ flat as part of the criminal investigation against unidentified perpetrators 05/02/2021, Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok 06/02/2021 final decision on the matter was taken by the Primorye Regional Court on 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, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation The regional department of the interior opened a criminal investigation on the charges of wilful blocking of transport communications. According to the official version, unidentified persons organised, by means of Internet communications, a gathering. The participants of the gathering blocked the street and, as a result, public buses and ambulances could not follow their routes. The applicant was suspected to be one of the organisers of the gathering. The purpose of the search was to find (1) electronical devices used to document the gathering, (2) documents pertaining to the crime and (3) other objects and documents necessary to establish the circumstances of the case.       1556/22* 17/12/2021 Vladimir Viktorovich GUKOV 1974   Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov Taganrog search under the Operational-Search Activities Act, applicant’s house 22/08/2021, Leninskiy District Court of   Rostov-on-Don 23/08/2021,   the court order was not amenable to appeal no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/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   Art. 8 (1) - secret surveillance - The applicant complains that his phone conversations were intercepted without any reasonable limits. Interceptions authorised on 26/05/2021, 08/06/2021, 06/07/2021, 14/07/2021, 20/07/2021, 30/07/2021, 10/08/2021, 19/08/2021 by the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don; Specific defects: the use of “surveillance” or “operative experiment” measures not accompanied by sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness (”quality of law”), the applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of unlawful search and interception of phone communications     2196/22* 07/12/2021 Gennadiy Andreyevich KOLOTUKHIN 1970   Valeriy Viktorovich Kanayev Diveyevo Search under the Code of Criminal Procedure; the applicant’s house 11/06/2021, Diveyevskiy District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region 18/06/2021 final decision on the matter was taken by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 16/08/2021 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), particular circumstances: manner of the search, 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       4018/22* 21/12/2021 Aleksandr Gennadyevich KRUGLOV 1976       search of the applicant’s flat 30/07/2021, Samarskiy District Court of Samara 26/08/2021 final decision on the matter was taken by the Samara Regional Court on 04/10/2021 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 the court authorised the search with a purpose to discover "materials of extremist nature" and other objects and materials which might be important for the criminal investigation against unidentified perpetrators on the charges of public calls for extremist activities     7855/22* 22/01/2022 Yuriy Andreyevich KOLOTUKHIN 1959   Valeriy Viktorovich Kanayev Diveyevo search of the applicant’s flat 11/06/2021, Diveyevskiy District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region 18/06/2021 Voznesenskiy District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region, 26/10/2021; Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 20/12/2021 no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no special safeguards for lawyers: no presence of independent observers       18825/22* 19/03/2022 Pavel Valeryevich ROMANOV 1981       search of the applicant’s flat 24/12/2021, Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary 09/01/2022 Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary, 28/01/2022; Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 01/03/2022 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 conducted as part of the criminal investigation against the applicant’s former wife     28805/22* 05/09/2022 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich TETERIN 1979   Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk St Petersburg Search of the applicant’s flat as part of the criminal investigation 28/04/2022, Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic 29/04/2022   final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 10/06/2022 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 the criminal investigation was opened against unidentified perpetrators on the charges of false report of terrorism, according to the search warrant, the purpose of the search was to find objects which might be important for the criminal investigation, as claimed by a police officer in the relevant report     35117/22* 28/06/2022 Anna Valentinovna KIRICHENKO 1975   Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov Taganrog urgent search in the applicant’s house 15/11/2021, investigator’s order 16/11/2021 Dorogomilovskiy District Court, 22/11/2021; Moscow City Court, 29/03/2022 particular circumstances: manner of the search, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no sifting procedure of the electronic data, 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 conducted in the applicant’s house as part of the criminal investigation in connection with her former husband’s alleged involvement in tabaco smuggling. The former husband is registered in the applicant’s house. According to the applicant, he lives elsewhere. The applicant lives in the house together with her minor children     36676/22* 13/07/2022 Tatyana Viktorovna SPORYSHEVA 1976   Irina Vladimirovna Gak Rostov-on-Don search of the applicant’s flat 11/03/2022, Pervomayskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don 13/03/2022 Rostov Regional Court, 18/04/2022   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), no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no sifting procedure of the electronic data, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: lawyer not allowed to assist the applicant during the search The search was conducted based on the assumption of the applicant’s awareness about the suspect R.’s criminal activity (he was charged with "rehabilitation of Nazism") and possible presence of objects related to the said offence in her flat. According to the applicant she has never met R.     38201/22 23/07/2022 Igor Khasanovich ISLAMOV 1976   Vladimir Gennadyevich Dvoryak Abakan Search of the applicant’s flat 17/11/2021, investigator 18/11/2021 Minusinsk Town Court,19/11/2021. On 28/12/2021 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 19/11/2021 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. On 18/01/2022 the Minusinsk Town Court found the search in compliance with the law; On 03/03/2022 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the said decision on appeal (received by post on 27/03/2022; the applicant attended the relevant hearing) no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation, 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 reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation The applicant was charged with fraud.     42000/22* 16/08/2022 Yevgeniy Artemovich SAUTIN 2004   Tumas Arsenovich Misakyan Moscow search in the applicant’s flat 04/03/2022, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir 25/03/2022 final decision on the matter was taken by the Vladimir Regional Court on 04/05/2022 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 The search was authorised as part of the criminal investigation in connection with a no war graffiti made under the bridge in Vladimir. The applicant worked for an internet media site that posted the photograph of the graffiti.     43090/22 17/08/2022 Daniil Sergeyevich BOSTYAKOV 2001       search of the applicant’s house 27/05/2022, the investigator’s decision 31/05/2022, Pskovskiy District Court authorised the search 27/05/2022 Pskov Regional Court, 13/07/2022 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 reasonable suspicion as the basis for 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), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect The applicant’s father is suspected of committing a drug related offence     55513/22* 08/11/2022 Elvira Ilyasovna SHAMSUTDINOVA 1979   Ruslan Azatovich SHAMSUTDINOV 2014   Aisha Azatovna SHAMSUTDINOVA 2008   Alla Azatovna SHAMSUTDINOVA 2004       search of the applicants’ house 11/03/2020, investigator 11/03/2020 on 08//05/202 the Sovetskiy District Court found that the search of the applicants’ house was unlawful. Subsequently, the applicants’ civil claims were granted in part. They were awarded RUB 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage, final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 28/07/2022 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), no special safeguards for lawyers: no special instructions by a judge regarding privileged materials       12082/23 07/03/2023 Elsa Rinatovna NABIULLINA 1988   Stanislav Aleksandrovich Seleznev Samara search of the applicant’s house within the framework of the criminal investigation 11/08/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan 17/08/2022 final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 08/11/2022 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, 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 search was conducted as part of the criminal investigation on the charges of public justification of terrorism Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - Search at the journalist’s home in connection with her professional activities ( Nagla v. Latvia , no. 73469/10, 16 July 2013)   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the unlawful search complaint