Published on 26 June 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 13079/17 Olga Nikolayevna PROKAYEVA against Russia and 17 other applications

(see list appended)

PROCEDURAL INFORMATION

Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 1 June 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia.

In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention.

In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).

For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website .

SUBJECT MATTER

The applications concern complaints raised under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention relating to unlawful search which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Misan v. Russia, no. 4261/04, 2 October 2014 and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, 4 February 2020).

APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS

List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful search)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Type of search

Premises

Date of the search authorisation

Name of issuing authority

Date of the search

Means of exhaustion

Specific defects

Other relevant information

Other complaints under well-established case-law

13079/17

31/01/2017

Olga Nikolayevna PROKAYEVA

1961Igor Viktorovich Pechenev

Lipetsk

House search

22/09/2016, Gryazy Town Court of the Lipetsk Region

23/09/2016, the Lipetsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint concerning the authorisation of the search on 18/11/2016

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’s discretion)

The criminal case against the applicant was closed after the search had been conducted and brought no results

43826/17*

07/06/2017

Natalya Dmitriyevna NAZARETS

1966House search

14/12/2016, Lechinskiy District Court of Vladivostok

25/01/2017-26/01/2017. Primorye Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint on 27/03/2017. The cassation appeal before the Primorye Regional Court was dismissed on 28/04/2017

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’s discretion), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search, particular circumstances: manner of the search

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’s son, whose official place of residence was not the applicant’s flat. The courts reasoned that the applicant’s flat was the defendant’s actual place of residence.

45890/17

13/06/2017

Nikolay Yuryevich BUGLAK

1962Ivan Aleksandrovich Timofeyev

Chita

search under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant’s flat

12/07/2013, Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Chita

12/07/2013, judicial review of the decision to issue a search warrant, Zabaykalskiy Regional Court, 13/12/2016 (appellate court)

no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search

5518/18

16/01/2018

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich SILACHEV

1990Elik Yevgenyevich Abdrashitov

Orel

Home search

03/10/2016, Apastovskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic

30/09/2016, Supreme Court Tatarstan Republic rejected the appeal complaint on 05/09/2017

no 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 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’s discretion)

The search was carried out early in the morning (between 5.15 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)

13664/18

12/03/2018

Vera Vladimirovna VOLKOVA

1967Home search

24/03/2017 Moscovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod

22/03/2017; appeal decision on the search warrant - 28/11/2017, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court; on 22/01/2018 the Moskovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod dismissed the applicant’s complaint under Article 125 CCrP about the authorities’ unlawful actions during the search

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, 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’s discretion)

The applicant is an attorney. The search was authorised against her husband who was suspected of committing large-scale fraud

43563/18

29/10/2016

Tatyana Aleksandrovna PASHKINA

1953Home search

24/03/2016 Tsentralniy District Court of Sochi

25/03/2016, appeal against court’s authorisation (Krasnodar Regional Court 12/05/2016), cassation appeal (Krasnodar Regional Court, 29/09/2016)

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, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search

The applicant is a lawyer.

1720/19

24/12/2018

Konstantin Kazimirovich LUBNEVSKIY

1968ZAO ROSSPETSKOMPLEKT

1900search under the Operational-Search Activities Act, business premises

04/07/2018, Head of the Police Department in Krasnogorsk

06/07/2018, no remedies under the Russian law

no 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

the operational search activity allegedly 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

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search

1731/19*

17/12/2018

Nadezhda Aleksandrovna ABASHIDZE

1982search under Code of Criminal Procedure, living premises (applicant’s flat)

15/05/2018, 18/05/2018, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar

22/05/2018, challenge of the judicial authorisation of the search to no avail (10/07/2018 - the Krasnodar Regional Court as a court of appeal)

no 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’s discretion)

the applicant was a 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

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - The applicant complains that she 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 CCP with no success (final - the Krasnodar Regional Court, 07/08/2018)

2332/19

17/12/2018

Andrey Fedorovich PETROV

1975Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov

Taganrog

inspection conducted by Federal Security Service in the applicant’s house, car and land plot as an operative and search measure

18/10/2018, a judge of Leninskiy District Court in

Rostov-on-Don

19/10/2018, no appeal

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’s discretion)

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search

3828/19*

09/01/2019

Aleksey Sergeyevich BZHEVSKIY

1984search of the applicant’s home (the applicant resided in the flat under a lease agreement)

18/05/2018, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar

On 11/07/2018 the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar returned the applicant’s appeal without consideration on the merits. No procedural decision was taken by the court.

no 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’s discretion)

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search

41757/19*

26/05/2019

Irina Aleksandrovna YANOVITSKAYA

1983Search of the applicant’s

flat in which she had an office

25/09/2018, Leninskiy District Court of Perm

On 27/11/2018 the Perm Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 25/09/2018

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’s discretion), no special safeguards for lawyers: no special instructions by a judge regarding privileged materials

The applicant is an attorney

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - Th applicant complains of ineffectiveness of domestic remedies in respect of the search conducted in her apartment on 19/10/2018.

44389/19*

10/08/2019

Vitaliy Vladimirovich VAVILIN

1963Sergey Vasilyevich Brovchenko

Moscow

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

14/11/2018, Investigator of Investigating Committee; authorised by the final decisions of the Moscow City Court of 11/02/2019 and 27/03/2019

31/11/2018; the final decisions recognising the lawfulness of the searches were taken by the Moscow City Court on 11/02/2019 and 27/03/2019

no 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’s discretion)

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search

20144/20

25/02/2020

Aleksey Viktorovich KARPENKO

1976Aleksey Valeryevich Ivanov

Krasnodar

lawyer’s office

26/06/2019 investigator’s order on urgent search

26/06/2019,

28/06/2019 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar;

final decision:

05/09/2019 Krasnodar Regional Court

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

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search

49653/21*

18/09/2021

Gleb Sergeyevich BOBARIKO

1991house

Decision of the investigator of 20/08/2020

20/08/2020; The applicant appealed against the decision of the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, 24/08/2020, contesting the lawfulness of the search. Moscow City Court dismissed his claims on appeal on 14/04/2021

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’s 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

The criminal case against the applicant was instituted on 06/12/2019 on suspicion of committing a fraud. The search was conducted at night.

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - from 21/08/2020 to 21/07/2021, Presnenskiy District Court, the Moscow City Court,

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

52582/21*

11/10/2021

Elik Yevgenyevich ABDRASHITOV

1978Search of the house

16/07/2019, investigator for particularly important criminal cases of the Investigation Committee of the Republic of Tatarstan

16/07/2019, civil compensation claim (final - Supreme Court, 21/02/2022;

RUB 50,000 awarded)

no special safeguards for lawyers: no presence of independent observers, no special safeguards for lawyers: search conducted by the investigator without the court’s authorisation in circumstances that admitted of no delay

On 19/07/2019, the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, reviewing the search order following the investigator’s notification, declared the search unlawful.

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train, van; 20/04/2021-11/05/2021; 0,26 sq. m. of personal space

53917/21*

18/10/2021

AND

54811/21*

18/10/2021

AND

56808/21*

18/10/2021

Household

Liliya Yuryevna TROTSENKO

1961Yuriy Petrovich TROTSENKO

1961Yekaterina Yevgenyevna TROTSENKO

1983Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov

Taganrog

53917/21

House search

(The applicant’s house was searched within criminal proceedings against her son.)

54811/21

House search

(The applicant’s house was searched within criminal proceedings against his son)

56808/21

Search of the applicant’s home

(It appears that the search was conducted as part of the criminal investigation against the applicant’s husband (tobacco smuggling by an organised group).

53917/21

23/08/2021 No court authorisation; the Operational-Search Activities Act

54811/21

23/08/2021 No court authorisation; the Operational-Search Activities Act

56808/21

No court authorisation

53917/21

24/08/2021; the applicant was not provided with a copy of the house search authorisation

54811/21

24/08/2021; the applicant was not provided with a copy of the house search authorisation

56808/21

24/08/2021

53917/21

no 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

54811/21

no 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

56808/21

no 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

53917/21

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search under the Operational-Search Activities Act

54811/21

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of unlawful search under the Operational-Search Activities Act