Communicated on 4 September 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 52585/11 Yelena Mikhaylovna EPELDIMOVA against Russia lodged on 1 August 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Yelena Mikhaylovna Epeldimova , is a Russian national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Novosibirsk . Sh e is represented before the Court by Ms O. Ye. Mikhaylova , a lawyer practising in Novosibirsk.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 23 May 2008 investigating authorities received a report about an alleged crime of tax evasion allegedly committed by a Mr S., general director of company S. On the same date police performed an “on-site examination” ( осмотр места происшествия ) of the company ’ s office located not at its registered address, but in the flat belonging to the applicant. She herself worked as a ma nufacturing director of company S. and had her working place there. Police seized two hard drives one of which belonged to the applicant. A year later Mr S. was charged of tax evasion. The applicant was a witness in that case.

On 11 February 2011 the applicant complained about the unlawful search of her flat under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“ CCrP ”). In particular, the applicant claimed that the on-site examination of her flat had been a search in disguise to avoid the need for a court authorisation. On 15 February 2011 the Leninskiy District Court of Novosibirsk refused to examine the complaint on the ground that during the trial of Mr S. the court had already examined and dismissed a similar complaint about the on-site ex amination of 23 May 2008. On 30 March 2011 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal. In May 2011 the applicant attempted to bring a civil action about the unlawful search of her flat, but on 16 May 2011 the Leninskiy District Court of Novosibirsk treated her complaint as yet another one filed under Article 125 of the CCrP and ag ain refused to examine it. On 6 July 2011 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The ap plicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about unlawful search of her flat. She also complains about lack of an effective remedy in respect of the unlawful search of her flat.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. As regards the search of the applicant ’ s flat, was the interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for her private life, home and correspondence in accordance with the law and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?