Published on 22 November 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 54714/17 Zoya Feliksovna SVETOVA and Others against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 2 November 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applications concern searches of homes of public activists and journalists. The applicants were not the suspects of the criminal investigations within the framework of which the searches had been carried out.

COMMON QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

1. As regards the searches of the applicants’ homes, did the interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, home and correspondence pursue a legitimate aim, was it “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

1. (Applications nos. 54714/17 and 81578/17) Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the search carried out in their homes? If so, did it pursue a legitimate aim? Was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan , nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14, §§ 102-08, 22 April 2021)?

2. (Application no. 54714/17) Did the applicants have an effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention in respect of their complaints under Article 8 of the Convention related to the search of their home? In particular, did the applicants have a realistic possibility to appeal the court search warrant given the refusal of the investigating authorities to provide them with a copy of that search warrant? Further, did the applicants have an effective remedy in respect of the investigating authorities’ actions given the courts’ refusal to examine their complaint under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia?

3. (Application no. 15278/18) In view of the actions of the police in respect of the applicant during the search and it being filmed and later broadcasted by a TV channel, has there been an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention? If so, did that interference pursue a legitimate aim, was it “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

1.

54714/17

Svetova and Others v. Russia

27/07/2017

Zoya Feliksovna SVETOVA 1959 Moscow Russian Anna Viktorovna DZYADKO

1998(heir of late Viktor Mikhaylovich DZYADKO 1955 Moscow Russian) Filipp Viktorovich DZYADKO 1982 Moscow Russian Timofey Viktorovich DZYADKO 1985 Moscow Russian Tikhon Viktorovich DZYADKO 1987 Moscow Russian

Karinna Akopovna MOSKALENKO

2.

81578/17

Yeltarenko v. Russia

27/11/2017

Valeriya Ivanovna YELTARENKO 1994 Nizhniy Novgorod Russian

Tumas Arsenovich MISAKYAN

3.

15278/18

Valeyev v. Russia

22/03/2018

Timur Rafidovich VALEYEV 1984 Moscow Russian

Kamalia MEHTIYEVA