CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 janvier 2024

.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 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } Published on 5 February 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no.   15013/18 Gulmira Urazbayevna MULDAGALIYEVA against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 11 January 2024, 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     15013/18* 14/03/2018 Gulmira Urazbayevna MULDAGALIYEVA 1982 Vitaliy Viktorovich Kulapov Moscow Inspection of the applicant’s flat under the Law on Operative and Investigative Activities 14/09/2017, Saratov Regional Court 15/09/2017,   Frunzenskiy District Court of Saratov, 23/10/2017;     Saratov Regional Court, 13/12/2017 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)         43810/19 05/08/2019 Svetlana Vladimirovna PROKOPYEVA 1979   Denis Nikolayevich KAMALYAGIN 1985   Tumas Arsenovich Misakyan Moscow (1) Search of the first applicant’s flat was conducted within the framework of the criminal proceedings against her;   (2) Urgent search of the first applicant’s house within the framework of the criminal proceedings against unidentified persons on the charges of extremism,   (3) Urgent search of the second applicant’s flat within the framework of the criminal proceedings against unidentified persons on the charges of extremism (1) 06/02/2019, Pskov Town Court               (2) 18/03/2022, Pskov Town Police Investigator                     (3) 18/03/2022, Pskov Town Police Investigator (1) 06/02/2019,   Pskov Regional Court, 03/04/2019           (2) 18/03/2022, Pskov Town Court, 20/03/2022, Pskov Regional Court, 27/04/2022               (3) 18/03/2022,   Pskov Town Court, 20/03/2022, Pskov Regional Court, 27/04/2022 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 reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation (1) On 05/02/2019 the investigator with the regional investigative committee opened a criminal case against the applicant on the charge of public calls to justify terrorism in connection with the applicant’s publication and podcast; (2) and (3) The criminal case was opened in response to a publication on Internet allegedly discrediting Mr V. Art. 10 (1) - Freedom of expression - The applicants, journalists, complain that the searches were in violation of Article 10 (see, among other authorities, Nagla v. Latvia)     34276/20* 04/08/2020 Rustam Ratmirovich ISKHAKOV 1996 Igor Olegovich Markelov Moscow Urgent search of the applicant’s flat 15/02/2020, Investigator, District Department of the Interior; the search order was authorised by the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow on 21/02/2020 15/05/2020, final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 19/05/2020 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 reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect         9637/21* 28/01/2021 Yevgeniya Andreyevna SANINA 1983     urgent search of the applicant’s flat 13/08/2019, senior investigator, authorised by the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow on 12/10/2020 14/08/2019, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 16/12/2020 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: applicant not a suspect The search was conducted within the framework of the criminal proceedings against third parties on the charges of illegal banking activities conducted by an organised group; the applicant knew the alleged perpetrators       40145/21 23/07/2021 Petr Yuryevich VERZILOV 1987 Leonid Alekseyevich Solovyev Moscow Urgent search of the applicant’s flat in connection with criminal investigation in respect of unidentified organisers of mass protest and unrest 21/06/2020, senior investigator with the investigative committee; upheld by the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow on 02/02/2021 21/06/2020; upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 07/04/2021 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 On 07/07/2020 the applicant was charged with failure to report a dual nationality to the Russian migration service       46776/21* 10/09/2021 Ivan Yuryevich PAVLOV 1971 Karinna Akopovna Moskalenko Strasbourg Search of the applicant’s flat and offices; search of the hotel room where the applicant stayed 27/04/2021 and 29/04/2021, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow 30/04/2021, the relevant search orders were upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 07/07/2021 and 08/07/2021 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 special safeguards for lawyers: no presence of independent observers, no special safeguards for lawyers: no special instructions by a judge regarding privileged materials The applicant, a practising attorney, was charged with having divulged the classified information pertaining to the criminal investigation in respect of one of his clients       57274/21* 17/11/2021 Svetlana Nikolayevna KOVALETS 1973 Vitaliy Viktorovich Cherkasov St Petersburg Search of the applicant’s flat 06/02/2021, investigator’s decision (urgent search) 06/02/2021, lawfulness of the decision confirmed by domestic courts upon the applicant’s appeal (final decision of the St Petersburg City Court on 27/05/2021) 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 reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation         57897/21* 13/11/2021 Tatyana Ivanovna LEYSHA 1955 Vitaliy Viktorovich Cherkasov St Petersburg Search of the flat within the framework of the criminal proceedings against unidentified persons; urgent search 31/01/2021, Senior investigator, department of the Ministry of the Interior 31/01/2021; Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 02/02/2022; St   Petersburg City Court, 24/05/2021 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         14626/22* 20/02/2022 Household   Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK 1976   Irina Vladimirovna KHARIONOVSKAYA 1976   Kristina Ernestovna MEZAK 2005   NIkolay Ernestovich MEZAK 2002   Nina Vasilyevna MEZAK 1951 Aleksey Nikolayevich Laptev Moscow Search of the flat 25/06/2021, Syktyvdinskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 26/06/2021, the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld the search order on appeal on 20/08/2021 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) The search was conducted within the framework of the criminal proceedings against the first applicant charged with contempt of the court