FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 33012/13 Konstantīns BEREZOVS against Latvia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 March 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Lətif Hüseynov , President, Mārtiņš Mits , Mattias Guyomar , judges, and Martina Keller , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 May 2013,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Konstantīns Berezovs , is a Latvian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Balvi .

2 . The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce .

3 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4 . On 2 November 2012 administrative-offence proceedings were instituted. The material in the case file indicated that a person, who did not wish to disclose his or her identity, had called the police to allege that the applicant was selling homemade alcohol. The police then interviewed the applicant ’ s neighbours.

5 . On 5 November 2012 an investigating judge of the Balvi District Court ( Balvu rajona tiesa ) examined material submitted to her by the police authorities (see paragraph 4 above) and authorised them to carry out an inspection at the applicant ’ s home with a view to locating and seizing any illegal alcohol products.

6 . On 15 November 2012 a police raid was organised in the city of Balvi and its neighbouring area with a view to, among other things, locating and seizing illegal alcohol products. Four officers attached to the Rēzekne police arrived at the applicant ’ s home and inspected it. They did not find any alcohol products. They did not draw up any official records following the inspection.

7 . The parties disagreed as to the manner in which the inspection was carried out. The Government referred to written statements by the police officers to the effect that the applicant had failed to cooperate by refusing to open any closed compartments (such as cupboards), which had resulted in them not being inspected. He had also refused to open his garage, which resulted in it not being inspected. The police officers had claimed that the applicant had failed to comply with their lawful orders. The applicant disagreed. He submitted that the police officers had acted in a rude manner, had opened closed compartments by themselves, and had requested the applicant to present any illegal objects; all this had taken place in the presence of his minor children. The applicant contended that the inspection had been carried out in order to intimidate him.

8 . On 25 December 2012 the police terminated the administrative-offence proceedings. That decision confirmed that no homemade alcohol had been found at the applicant ’ s home. The applicant was informed of that decision on 1 February 2013, but he was not issued with a copy of it.

9 . On various dates the applicant lodged complaints with the police authorities. The Internal Security Office of the State Police ( Valsts policijas Iekšējās drošības birojs ) carried out an internal inquiry and came to the following conclusions. The inspection of the applicant ’ s home had been authorised by a judge. In order to avoid possible conflict situations, the inspection had been carried out by officers of the Rēzekne police, and not those attached to the Balvi police, as the applicant had previously lodged complaints against the latter. No official records had been drawn up following the inspection despite the unequivocal requirement laid down by law (see paragraph 11 below). Although the police officers were found to have breached the domestic law in that respect, they could not be held liable in disciplinary proceedings. None of them had been specifically assigned to be in charge of the inspection. Consequently, it was the Head of the Public Order Department of the Balvi police who had to be held liable. It was not considered necessary to impose a disciplinary penalty on the Head of the Public Order Department; she was reprimanded. On 13 December 2012 the applicant was informed in a summary fashion of the results of that inquiry.

10 . On 19 December 2012 the Acting President of the Balvi District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint concerning the judicial authorisation to carry out the inspection at his home (see paragraph 5 above). She addressed the applicant ’ s concerns in relation to the anonymous source and established that the case material had contained further information gathered by the police (see paragraph 4 above). The Acting President concluded that the investigating judge had issued the judicial authorisation in accordance with the law, had examined the case material and had taken into account the need for the police to exercise their powers effectively.

11 . Article 256 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences ( Latvijas Administratīvo pārkāpumu kodekss ), as in force at the material time, set out the procedure for carrying out an inspection at the location of an administrative offence, as follows:

“During an inspection of the location of an administrative offence an authorised official may seize objects related to the administrative offence and the means of its commission.

A procedural record shall be drawn up upon the completion of an inspection of the location of an administrative offence.

...

Publicly inaccessible ... territory or premises, and objects in them ... may be inspected by an authorised ... official ... subject to the owner ’ s ... consent or ... the decision of a judge, adopted on the basis of an application by the authorised official and the case material.

...

The decision by the judge may be appealed against to the president of [the same] court, whose decision is final.”

COMPLAINT

12 . The applicant complained, under Article 8 of the Convention, about the inspection of his home on 15 November 2012 by the police.

THE LAW

13 . The applicant alleged in particular that the judge had authorised the inspection of his home solely on the basis of information received from an anonymous source. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home ...

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

14 . The Government contested that argument.

Admissibility

15 . The Government argued that the applicant had not suffered a significant disadvantage within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention. Given that the police had visually inspected the applicant ’ s home very briefly, had not opened any closed compartments and had not seized any items, the alleged violation had not attained a minimum level of severity. The applicant ’ s allegations regarding the authorisation for carrying out the inspection had been examined by the president of the relevant court and the authorisation was found to be lawful.

16 . The applicant disagreed. He contended that the police officers had acted in a rude manner and had opened closed compartments by themselves (see paragraph 7 above).

17 . The Court must examine whether: (1) the applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage; (2) whether respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols attached thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits; and (3) whether the case was duly considered by a domestic tribunal (see Zwinkels v. the Netherlands ( dec. ), no. 16593/10, § 24, 9 October 2012).

(a) Whether the applicant has suffered a “significant disadvantage”

18 . The Court notes at the outset that the applicant ’ s complaint concerns solely the judicial authorisation to carry out the inspection at the applicant ’ s home (see paragraph 13 above).

19 . Inspired by the principle de minimis non curat praetor , the admissibility criterion contained in Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention hinges on the idea that a violation of a right, however real from a purely legal point of view, should attain a minimum level of severity to warrant consideration by an international court. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things , relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case. The severity of a violation should be assessed, taking account of both the applicant ’ s subjective perceptions and what is objectively at stake in a particular case (see Korolev v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010).

20 . The Court considers it important that the inspection at the applicant ’ s home was authorised by the investigating judge. She examined the case material, which – contrary to the applicant ’ s allegations – contained not only information received from an anonymous source but also information provided by the applicant ’ s neighbours, and authorised the inspection (see paragraph 5 above). Moreover, in view of the applicant ’ s previous complaints against officers of the Balvi police, the inspection was carried out by officers attached to another regional police unit.

21 . Taking into account that there is nothing in the case file to indicate that the inspection at the applicant ’ s home went beyond what could be considered an ordinary police inspection with prior judicial authorisation, and in view of the limited scope of the applicant ’ s complaint (see paragraph 13 above), the Court concludes that the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage.

(b) Whether respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols attached thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits

22 . The second element set out in Article 35 § 3 (b) compels the Court to examine the case in any event, if respect for human rights so requires. This would apply where a case raises questions of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention, for instance whether there is a need to clarify the States ’ obligations under the Convention or to induce the respondent State to resolve a structural deficiency (see Ladygin v. Russia , no. 35365/05, 30 August 2011).

23 . Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the problem of unlawful or unauthorised police searches has been the subject of the Court ’ s well-established case-law (see, in general, Bože v. Latvia , no. 40927/05, 18 May 2017). The Court considers that the present case does not raise any additional issues clarifying the States ’ obligations under the Convention or inducing the respondent State to resolve a structural deficiency. Accordingly, it does not consider that respect for human rights compels it to examine the case (see Rooney v. Ireland ( dec. ) [Committee], no. 6870/18, § 34, 17 March 2020).

(c) Whether the case was duly considered by a domestic tribunal

24 . Article 35 § 3 (b) does not allow the rejection of an application on the ground of “no significant disadvantage” if the case has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal. Its purpose is to ensure that every case receives a judicial examination whether at national level or at the European level. The clause is also consonant with the principle of subsidiarity, as reflected in particular in Article 13 of the Convention, which requires that an effective remedy against violations be available at the national level (see Korolev , cited above).

25 . In the Court ’ s view, the facts of the present case taken as a whole disclose no denial of justice at the domestic level. The applicant ’ s grievances, which were specifically directed against the judicial authorisation to carry out the inspection at his home (see paragraph 13 above), were addressed and dismissed by the president of the relevant court (see paragraph 10 above).

26 . The Court concludes that the applicant ’ s case was duly considered by a domestic tribunal within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention .

(d) Conclusion

27 . It follows that this complaint must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4 of the Convention. This conclusion obviates the need to consider if other admissibility requirements have been complied with.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 1 April 2021 .

             {signature_p_2}

Martina Keller Lətif Hüseynov Deputy Registrar President