Communicated on 17 May 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 69810/11 Denis Gennadyevich KUZMINAS against Russia lodged on 20 October 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Denis Gennadyevich Kuzminas, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Kaliningrad.

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

On 3 February 2011 police performed a test-purchase of drugs from the applicant and then urgently searched his flat on the basis of an investigator ’ s order. On the same date the investigator informed the court about the search. On 9 February 2011 the Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad found the search order lawful. The District Court held, in particular, that the investigator had sufficient reasons to believe that at the applicant ’ s residence address police would find “drugs, psychotropic and poisonous substances, other objects banned from civil circulation, money and valuables earned by crime, as well as other objects and documents relevant for the investigation”. The District Court also considered that the search had been performed in the conditions of urgency.

The applicant received a copy of the judgment of 9 February 2011 on 27 June 2011. He appealed against it complaining, inter alia , about the delayed court approval of the search order and lack of reasons for the urgency of the search. On 6 September 2011 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment of 9 February 2011. The Regional Court found the investigator ’ s search order reasonable, urgent and complying with the rules of procedure.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the unlawful search of his flat and lack of an effective judicial review of the search.

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 his private life, home and correspondence in accordance with the law and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention (see Smirnov v. Russia , no. 71362/01, § 47 , 7 June 2007 ; Aleksanyan v. Russia , no. 46468/06, § 216 , 22 December 2008 ; Kolesnichenko v. Russia , no. 19856/04, § 33 , 9 April 2009; Avanesyan v. Russia , no. 41152/06, § 44, 18 September 2014; and Misan v. Russia , no. 4261/04, § 60, 2 October 2014 )?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, did the national law require the national courts to examine the issues of “proportionality” and “necessity in a democratic society” in respect of the searches of lawyers ’ premises (see Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom , nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, §§ 135-39, ECHR 1999 ‑ VI; Peck v. the United Kingdom , no. 44647/98, §§ 105-07, ECHR 2003 ‑ I; and Keegan v. the United Kingdom , no. 28867/03, §§ 40-43, ECHR 2006 ‑ X) ? Did the national courts assess the “proportionality” and “necessity in a democratic society” of the search in the present case?