{"id":21686,"date":"2023-11-23T09:03:49","date_gmt":"2023-11-23T09:03:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21686"},"modified":"2023-11-23T09:03:49","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T09:03:49","slug":"case-of-prokayeva-and-others-v-russia-the-applicants-complained-of-the-unlawful-search","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21686","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF PROKAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – The applicants complained of the unlawful search"},"content":{"rendered":"

The applicants complained principally of the unlawful search.<\/p>\n

In the leading cases concerning searches of the applicants\u2019 homes, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the searches were carried out without relevant and sufficient grounds and in the absence of safeguards that would confine their impact to reasonable bounds. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Full text of the document.<\/em><\/p>\n

European Court of Human Rights
\nFOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF PROKAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 13079\/17 and 26 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n23 November 2023<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Prokayeva and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nBranko Lubarda, President,
\nArmen Harutyunyan,
\nAna Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 2 November 2023,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table<\/p>\n

2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

4. The applicants complained of the unlawful search. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n

II. Jurisdiction<\/strong><\/p>\n

6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792\/10 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201173, 17 January 2023).<\/p>\n

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n

7. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful search. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

8. In the leading cases concerning searches of the applicants\u2019 homes (see Misan v. Russia, no. 4261\/04, 2 October 2014 and Kruglov and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 11264\/04 and 15 others, 4 February 2020), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the searches were carried out without relevant and sufficient grounds and in the absence of safeguards that would confine their impact to reasonable bounds.<\/p>\n

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a08 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well\u2011established case-law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0103\u201108 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning conditions of transport of detainees and the lack of a speedy review of detention matters; Rozhkov v. Russia (no.\u00a02), no.\u00a038898\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 91-96, 31\u00a0January 2017, concerning forced attendance for questioning, and Dirdizov v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a041461\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0108-11, 27\u00a0November 2012, as regards excessive length of pre-trial detention).<\/p>\n

V. remaining complaints<\/strong><\/p>\n

12. Some applicants also complained that they had not been afforded an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article 8, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention. Having regard to the above findings, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (see Kruglov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0138).<\/p>\n

VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

13. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n

14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Misan, cited above, \u00a7 70), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16\u00a0September 2022;<\/p>\n

3. Declares the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the unlawful search and other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that it is not necessary to deal separately with the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 13 of the Convention raised in connection to their Article 8 complaints;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the unlawful search;<\/p>\n

5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);<\/p>\n

6. Holds<\/p>\n

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 November 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 Branko Lubarda
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n

____________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(unlawful search)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Year of birth\/registration<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nType of search<\/strong><\/p>\n

Premises<\/strong><\/td>\n

Date of the search authorisation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Name of issuing authority<\/strong><\/td>\n

Date of the search<\/strong><\/p>\n

Means of exhaustion<\/strong><\/td>\n

Specific defects<\/strong><\/td>\nOther relevant information<\/strong><\/td>\nOther complaints under well\u2011established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant\/household<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)<\/strong>[i]<\/strong><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n13079\/17<\/p>\n

31\/01\/2017<\/td>\n

Olga Nikolayevna PROKAYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/td>\n

Pechenev Igor Viktorovich<\/p>\n

Lipetsk<\/td>\n

House search<\/td>\n22\/09\/2016,<\/p>\n

Gryazy Town Court of the Lipetsk Region<\/td>\n

23\/09\/2016, the Lipetsk Regional Court rejected the applicant\u2019s complaint concerning the authorisation of the search on 18\/11\/2016<\/td>\nno 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\u2019s discretion)<\/td>\nThe criminal case against the applicant was closed after the search had been conducted and brought no results<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n43826\/17<\/p>\n

07\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Natalya Dmitriyevna NAZARETS<\/strong><\/p>\n

1966<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nHouse search<\/td>\n14\/12\/2016, Lechinskiy District Court of Vladivostok<\/td>\n25\/01\/2017-26\/01\/2017. Primorye Regional Court rejected the applicant\u2019s complaint on 27\/03\/2017. The cassation appeal before the Primorye Regional Court was dismissed on 28\/04\/2017.<\/td>\nno 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\u2019s discretion),<\/p>\n

no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect,<\/p>\n

no evidence supporting the search authorisation,<\/p>\n

no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search, particular circumstances: manner of the search<\/td>\n

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\u2019s son, whose official place of residence was not the applicant\u2019s flat. The courts reasoned that the applicant\u2019s flat was the defendant\u2019s actual place of residence.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n45890\/17<\/p>\n

13\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Nikolay Yuryevich BUGLAK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1962<\/td>\n

Timofeyev Ivan Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Chita<\/td>\n

search under the Code of Criminal Procedure in the applicant\u2019s flat<\/td>\n12\/07\/2013, Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Chita<\/td>\n12\/07\/2013, judicial review of the decision to issue a search warrant, Zabaykalskiy Regional Court, on 13\/12\/2016, final decision (appellate court)<\/td>\n\u00a0no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation;<\/p>\n

no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search, applicant was not a suspect<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n5518\/18<\/p>\n

16\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich SILACHEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Abdrashitov Elik Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Orel<\/td>\n

Home search<\/td>\n03\/10\/2016, Apastovskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic<\/td>\n30\/09\/2016, Supreme Court Tatarstan Republic rejected the appeal complaint on 05\/09\/2017<\/td>\nno 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 was 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\u2019s discretion)<\/td>\nThe search was carried out early in the morning (between 5.15 a.m. 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).<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n13664\/18<\/p>\n

12\/03\/2018<\/td>\n

Vera Vladimirovna VOLKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1967<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nHome search (lawyer\u2019s home)<\/td>\n24\/03\/2017 Moskovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod<\/td>\n22\/03\/2017; appeal decision on the search warrant – 28\/11\/2017, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court; on 22\/01\/2018 the Moscovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod dismissed the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP) about the authorities\u2019 unlawful actions during the search<\/td>\nno 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\u2019s discretion)<\/td>\nThe applicant is an attorney. The search was authorised against her husband who was suspected of committing large-scale fraud.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n43563\/18<\/p>\n

29\/10\/2016<\/td>\n

Tatyana Aleksandrovna PASHKINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1953<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nHome search (lawyer\u2019s home)<\/td>\n24\/03\/2016 Tsentralniy District Court of Sochi<\/td>\n25\/03\/2016, appeal against court\u2019s authorisation (Krasnodar Regional Court 12\/05\/2016), cassation appeal (Krasnodar Regional Court, 29\/09\/2016)<\/td>\nno 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 evidence supporting the search authorisation, no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search<\/td>\nThe application is a lawyer.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n1720\/19<\/p>\n

24\/12\/2018<\/td>\n

Konstantin Kazimirovich LUBNEVSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1968<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0ZAO ROSSPETSKOMPLEKT<\/strong><\/p>\n

1900<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nsearch under the Operational-Search Activities Act (OSAA), business premises<\/td>\n04\/07\/2018, Head of Police Department in Krasnogorsk<\/td>\n06\/07\/2018<\/td>\nno 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<\/td>\nthe operational search activity 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<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n1731\/19<\/p>\n

17\/12\/2018<\/td>\n

Nadezhda Aleksandrovna ABASHIDZE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nsearch under Code of the Criminal Procedure, living premises (applicant\u2019s flat)<\/td>\n15\/05\/2018, 18\/05\/2018, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar<\/td>\n22\/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)<\/td>\nno 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\u2019s discretion)<\/td>\nthe applicant, 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<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – The applicant 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 CCrP with no success (final – the Krasnodar Regional Court, 07\/08\/2018).<\/td>\n9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n2332\/19<\/p>\n

17\/12\/2018<\/td>\n

Andrey Fedorovich PETROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1975<\/td>\n

Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Taganrog<\/td>\n

inspection conducted by the Federal Security Service in the applicant\u2019s house, car and land plot as an operative and search measure<\/td>\n18\/10\/2018, Leninskiy District Court in Rostov-on-Don<\/td>\n19\/10\/2018<\/td>\nno 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\u2019s discretion)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n3828\/19<\/p>\n

09\/01\/2019<\/td>\n

Aleksey Sergeyevich BZHEVSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nsearch of the applicant\u2019s home (the applicant resided in the flat under a lease agreement)<\/td>\n18\/05\/2018, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar<\/td>\nOn 11\/07\/2018 the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar returned the applicant\u2019s appeal without consideration on the merits. No procedural decision was taken by the court.<\/td>\nno 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\u2019s discretion)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n41757\/19<\/p>\n

26\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Irina Aleksandrovna YANOVITSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSearch of the applicant\u2019s<\/p>\n

flat in which she had an office<\/td>\n

25\/09\/2018, Leninskiy District Court of Perm<\/td>\nOn 27\/11\/2018 the Perm Regional Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal against the decision of 25\/09\/2018<\/td>\nno 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\u2019s discretion), no special safeguards for lawyers: no special instructions by a judge regarding privileged materials<\/td>\nThe applicant is an attorney<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n44389\/19<\/p>\n

10\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

Vitaliy Vladimirovich VAVILIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1963<\/td>\n

Brovchenko Sergey Vasilyevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

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<\/td>\n14\/11\/2018, Investigator of Investigating Committee; authorised by the final decisions of the Moscow City Court of 11\/02\/2019 and 27\/03\/2019<\/td>\n31\/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.<\/td>\nno 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\u2019s discretion)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n20144\/20<\/p>\n

25\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Aleksey Viktorovich KARPENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

Ivanov Aleksey Valeryevich<\/p>\n

Krasnodar<\/td>\n

lawyer\u2019s office<\/td>\n26\/06\/2019 investigator\u2019s order for urgent search<\/td>\n26\/06\/2019,<\/p>\n

28\/06\/2019 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar;<\/p>\n

05\/09\/2019 Krasnodar Regional Court<\/td>\n

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<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n6519\/21<\/p>\n

28\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

Tatyana Georgiyevna MARTYNOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1963<\/td>\n

Volokh Valeriy Valeryevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

search of the flat<\/td>\n16\/07\/2020, investigator, 17\/06\/2020 Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow<\/td>\n16\/07\/2020, Moscow City Court on 21\/09\/2020<\/td>\nno 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\u2019s discretion), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n25412\/21<\/p>\n

16\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Ilya Vasilyevich ARISHCHENKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Artamonov Aleksandr Vasilyevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

search of the flat<\/td>\n02\/09\/2020, investigator, 04\/09\/2020, Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow<\/td>\n02\/09\/2020, Moscow City Court rejected the applicant\u2019s appeal on 01\/12\/2020<\/td>\nno 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\u2019s discretion)<\/td>\nThe applicant is an individual entrepreneur, who provides legal services (no evidence of being a Bar member). The investigation concerns Art. 159 \u00a7\u00a04 of the Criminal Code. The Chertanovskiy District Court declared the lawfulness of the search ex post facto.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n32407\/21<\/p>\n

05\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Roman Konstantinovich KAMENEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1979<\/td>\n

Brester Aleksandr Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

search under the OSAA, the applicant\u2019s flat<\/td>\n09\/12\/2020,<\/p>\n

the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

date of the search -10\/12\/2020. The applicant filed a cassation appeal against the decision 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.<\/td>\nno 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\u2019s discretion), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n32550\/21<\/p>\n

27\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Ilya Valeryevich KUPTSOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Kashirin Roman Mikhaylovich<\/p>\n

Pskov<\/td>\n

search of the flat<\/td>\n24\/02\/2021, Investigator of the Novgorod Region Department of the Federal Security Service, 02\/03\/2021 Novgorodskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region<\/td>\n25\/02\/2021, domestic courts declared ex post facto the lawfulness of the search. Novgorod Regional Court, 15\/04\/2021.<\/td>\nno adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: lawyer not allowed to assist the applicant during the search, broad terms\/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police\u2019s discretion)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n49653\/21<\/p>\n

18\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Gleb Sergeyevich BOBARIKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nhouse<\/td>\nDecision of the investigator of 20\/08\/2020<\/td>\n20\/08\/2020;<\/p>\n

The applicant appealed against the decision of Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow of 24\/08\/2020, contesting the lawfulness of the search. Moscow City Court dismissed his appeal on 14\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

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\u2019s 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<\/td>\nThe criminal case against the applicant was instituted on 06\/12\/2019 on suspicion of fraud. The search was conducted at night.<\/td>\nArt. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – from 21\/08\/2020 to 21\/07\/2021, Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, the Moscow City Court, fragility of the reasons employed to extend detention; lack of proper examination of alternative measures;<\/p>\n

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<\/td>\n

9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n50368\/21<\/p>\n

22\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Giya Enverovich KAKABADZE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1960<\/td>\n

Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/td>\n

search of the flat<\/td>\ncourt search warrant of 05\/02\/2021 issued by the Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok<\/td>\n06\/02\/2021; the Primorye Regional Court, 23\/03\/2021<\/td>\nno 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\u2019s discretion), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n50369\/21<\/p>\n

22\/09\/2021<\/p>\n

(3\u00a0applicants)<\/td>\n

Household<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Maksim Aleksandrovich KHOZYAYKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/p>\n

Kseniya Nikolayevna KHOZYAYKINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/p>\n

Kira Maksimovna KHOZYAYKINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

2009<\/td>\n

Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/td>\n

search of the flat<\/td>\n05\/02\/2021 Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok<\/td>\n06\/02\/2021; Primorye Regional Court on 23\/03\/2021<\/td>\nno 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\u2019s discretion)<\/td>\nThe applicants are a human rights defender and his wife and daughter. Their flat was searched in the course of the criminal proceedings against participants of \u201cOtpuskay\u201d manifestations.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n52582\/21<\/p>\n

11\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Elik Yevgenyevich ABDRASHITOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nHouse search<\/td>\n16\/07\/2019, investigator for particularly important criminal cases of the Investigation Committee of the Republic of Tatarstan<\/td>\n16\/07\/2019, civil compensation claim (final – Supreme Court judgment of 21\/02\/2022; RUB 50,000 awarded<\/td>\nno special safeguards for lawyers: no presence of independent observers, no special safeguards for lawyers: search conducted by the investigator without the court\u2019s authorisation in circumstances that admitted of no delay<\/td>\nOn 19\/07\/2019 the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, reviewing the search order following the investigator\u2019s notification, declared the search unlawful.<\/td>\nArt. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – train, van; 20\/04\/2021-11\/05\/2021; 0.26\u00a0sq. m of personal space<\/td>\n8,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n53917\/21<\/p>\n

18\/10\/2021<\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

54811\/21<\/p>\n

18\/10\/2021<\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

56808\/21<\/p>\n

18\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Household<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Liliya Yuryevna TROTSENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yuriy Petrovich TROTSENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/p>\n

Yekaterina Yevgenyevna TROTSENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Taganrog<\/td>\n

House search; the applicants are family<\/td>\nNo court authorisation; the Operational-Search Activities Act<\/td>\n24\/08\/2021; the applicants were not provided with a copy of the house search authorisation<\/td>\n\u00a0no 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<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n55440\/21<\/p>\n

26\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Yuliya Valeryevna KULIKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

Kozyrev Denis Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Lipovitsy<\/td>\n

Search under the Code of the Criminal Procedure, search of offices<\/td>\n14\/04\/2021, Investigator of the Volokolamsk Town Circuit, 26\/04\/2021 Volokolamsk Town Court of the Moscow Region<\/td>\n14\/04\/2021;<\/p>\n

the applicant complained to the domestic courts under Article 125 of the CCrP. Final – Moscow Regional Court, 24\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

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\u2019s 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<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n57275\/21<\/p>\n

17\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Yevgeniya Eduardovna LITVINOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1960<\/td>\n

Cherkasov Vitaliy Viktorovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

search of the flat<\/td>\n31\/01\/2021, investigator<\/td>\n31\/01\/2021;<\/p>\n

Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St\u00a0Petersburg, 02\/02\/2021,<\/p>\n

St Petersburg City Court, 28\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, 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\u2019s discretion)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n58638\/21<\/p>\n

10\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Yelena Anatolyevna GRECHINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1975<\/td>\n

Matyukhin Denis Anatolyevich<\/p>\n

Taganrog<\/td>\n

search of the flat<\/td>\n21\/07\/2021 Taganrog Town Court<\/td>\n06\/08\/2021, the decision of 21\/07\/2021 was not amenable to appeal<\/td>\nno 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\u2019s discretion)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[i]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n