CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB4B39BDE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s25D4CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 11 August 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 18981/17 Roman Volodymyrovych CHEREDNYCHENKO against Ukraine and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 23 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applicants are practicing lawyers whose premises were searched on various dates by law-enforcement officers. The applicants submit that, contrary to the provisions of domestic law, search warrants in their cases were issued by domestic courts without sufficient grounds and that some of the searches were carried out without independent observers from the relevant regional Bar Associations being present. The applicants in applications nos. 18981/17 and 29704/17 further contend that the search warrants were formulated in excessively broad terms and that the authorities seized items unrelated to the respective criminal proceedings, including materials protected by legal professional privilege. The applicants’ attempts to challenge the searches through the available domestic remedies proved unsuccessful. The applicants complain, in essence, that the searches were neither “in accordance with the law” nor necessary in a democratic society (all applicants), and that the seizure of the items belonging to them was unjustified (applicants in applications nos.   18981/17 and 29704/17). The applicants further complain that there were no effective remedies for their Convention complaints. The applicants rely on Article   8 alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention. Moreover, the applicants in applications nos.   18981/17 and 29704/17 also invoke Article   6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Further individual details are set out in the Appendix. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant in application no.   18981/17 properly exhausted domestic remedies for his complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, did he challenge the lawfulness of the search warrants during the preparatory court hearing after his case had been sent to trial (compare Reznik v. Ukraine , no. 31175/14, § 84, 23 January 2025)? 2.     Did the searches in the applicants’ premises (all applicants) and seizure of the respective items (applicants in applications nos.   18981/17 and   29704/17) constitute an interference with their right to respect for private life and/or home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8   §   2? The parties are invited, in particular, to comment on the following matters: (a) Did the search warrants in the present cases contain “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify the disputed search operations and was the scope of the warrants reasonably limited (see, for example , Robathin v. Austria , no.   30457/06, § 44, 3 July 2012; Golovan v.   Ukraine , no. 41716/06, § 61, 5   July 2012; Voykin and Others v.   Ukraine , no. 47889/08, §159, 27 March 2018)? (b) Were the searches accompanied by sufficient safeguards against the risk of breaches of   legal professional   privilege, including the presence of independent observers (see Kruglov and Others v. Russia , nos.   11264/04 and   15 others, §§ 128-29; 4 February 2020; Reznik , cited above, §§ 73-77; Kulák v. Slovakia , no. 57748/21, §§ 75-76, 3 April 2025 (not final))? 3.     Was the seizure of the items belonging to the applicants in applications nos. 18981/17 and 29704/17 in compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention (see Smirnov v. Russia , no. 71362/01, §§ 55-56, 7 June 2007; Zosymov v. Ukraine , no. 4322/06, §§   71-78, 7 July 2016)? 4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy for their complaints under Article   8 of the Convention (all applicants) and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (applicants in applications nos.   18981/17 and 29704/17), as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see Reznik , cited above, §§ 81-89, and the case-law cited therein)?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Facts relevant to the searches 1. 18981/17 Cherednychenko v.   Ukraine 27/02/2017 Roman Volodymyrovych CHEREDNYCHENKO 1978 Slovyansk Russian On 21/12/2016 a judge of a district court in Mariupol authorised searches, which were carried out on 23/12/2016 by investigators of the prosecutor’s office in the applicant’s apartment and two offices. No observers from the Bar Association were present. Grounds justifying the searches : the alleged involvement of the applicant in the extortion of a bribe by a police officer. Items seized : a mobile phone, cash, an electronic information carrier, a notepad. Attempted remedies : the applicant opposed the prosecutor’s request to attach the seized items. On 28/12/2016 the domestic court ordered that two of the items, namely the electronic information carrier and the notepad be returned. His subsequent appeal concerning the remaining items was dismissed by the court of appeal on 13/01/2017. Other relevant facts : On 30/09/2020 the applicant was found guilty of fraud and incitement to bribe an official. He was sentenced to four years in prison and confiscation of property (upheld on appeal on 26/09/2024). The applicant relied on Articles 6, 8, 13 and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention. 2. 29704/17 Lytvyn v.   Ukraine 14/04/2017 Oleksiy Oleksiyovych LYTVYN 1958 Yulyivka Ukrainian On 19/10/2016 a judge of a district court in Kyiv authorised a search, which was carried out on 09/11/2016 by a prosecutor of the General Prosecutor’s Office at the applicant’s residence. No observers from the Bar Association were present. Grounds justifying the searches : the alleged abuse of authority by the applicant. Items seized : two laptops, a tablet, and an electronic information carrier. Attempted remedies : the applicant’s request for the return of the seized items was rejected on the ground that the search warrant included them in the list of items of which seizure was authorised (ruling of the district court of 23/11/2016); the applicant also complained to the Prosecutor General and the Bar Association. The applicant relied on Articles 6, 8, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 3. 71250/17 Korotyuk v.   Ukraine 11/09/2017 Mykhaylo Gennadiyovych KOROTYUK 1985 Kyiv Ukrainian On 15/11/2016 a judge of a district court in Kyiv authorised a search of the business premises owned by the applicant and used jointly with his wife, a private notary, as their office. On 21/11/2016 a judge of the same court authorised searches of the applicant’s residence and another office. All three searches were carried out on 10/12/2016 by investigators of the prosecutor’s office (an observer from the Bar Association was absent during one of these searches). Grounds justifying the searches : according to the warrants, the applicant was “a lawyer for an organised criminal group” and helped its members evade criminal responsibility. Item seized : one notarial document belonging to the applicant’s wife.   Attempted remedies : the applicant filed criminal complaints against the judge who authorised one of the searches and against the prosecutors involved in the searches. On 24/04/2017 the National Anti-Corruption Bureau opened a criminal investigation. On 05/05/2017 the applicant lodged a civil claim within the criminal proceedings and sought victim status. That request was twice rejected; he successfully challenged both rejections in domestic courts (the latest domestic ruling being of 03/08/2017). The present status of those proceedings is unknown. The applicant relied on Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.