Published on 27 November 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 53989/17 Boris Semenovich FRIDMAN against Russia and 19 other applications

(see list appended)

PROCEDURAL INFORMATION

Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 2 November 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

53989/17*

17/07/2017

Boris Semenovich FRIDMAN

1951Aleksandr Nikolayevich Morev

St Petersburg

search in the applicant’s house conducted as part of the criminal proceedings against G.

09/02/2017, Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg

07/03/2017

on 02/05/2017 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the decision of the District Court on appeal

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)

64813/17*

21/08/2017

Nikolay Vyacheslavovich SAVELYEV

1993Yevgeniy Viktorovich Stupin

Moscow

"Urgent" search of the applicant’s flat within the framework of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charges of drug dealing

12/12/2016, Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow

11/12/2016

on 27/02/2017 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of the District Court on appeal

no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation

post factum judicial authorisation of the search, no justification provided as regards the urgency or necessity to carry out a search without a prior judicial authorisation (Kuzminas v. Russia, no. 69810/11, 21 December 2021)

5338/20*

10/12/2019

Aleksey Aleksandrovich KOLBOV

1988Nikita Vladimirovich Chumak

Moscow

Search of a residential flat

16/04/2019 investigator

16/04/2019

judicial review of the court order of 18/04/2019 authorising the search, appeal decided on 10/06/2019

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 sufficient reasons to justify the urgent search, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no sifting procedure of the electronic data

The applicant, an investigator with the FSB at the relevant time, was charged with bribery. The domestic courts reviewed the investigator’s decision to conduct the search ex post facto. The final relevant decision was taken by the Moscow City Court on 03/09/2019.

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Second Western Circuit Military Court, Appeal Military Court; court hearings since 27/05/2019 until 26/02/2021,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the judicial review of the search,

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Second Western Circuit Military Court, 01/10/2020

Appeal Military Court, 29/10/2020;

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - in vans and transit cells from 13/06/2019 to 26/02/2021,

overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient natural light

41191/21*

01/08/2021

Household:

Andrey Sergeyevich VAGANOV

1974Yevgeniy Sergeyevich YEROFEYEV

1987Maksim Vladimirovich Olenichev

St Petersburg

Residence house search

19/07/2019 Investigator,

21/09/2021 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow

19/07/2019 Search under the OSAA, appeal against the manner of the search under Art. 125 CCrP. Final – 01/02/2021, Moscow City Court

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

42357/21

22/07/2021

Sergey Aleksandrovich SEREDENKO

1989Andrey Petrovich Nakonechnyy

Moscow

Search (inspection) of the applicant’s flat

The search (inspection) was conducted by an investigator in the absence of a judicial authorisation under the Operational-Search Activities Act (OSAA)

12/01/2021

final decision was taken by the Volgograd Regional Court on 15/06/2021

no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation

the applicant’s complaint under Art. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed without consideration by the courts at two levels of jurisdiction. According to the courts’ reasoning, the applicant was to raise the complaint within the framework of the criminal proceedings against him

Art. 6 (1) - denial of access to courts - The applicant’s complaints about the search were dismissed without consideration on the merits

50365/21*

22/09/2021

Household

Marina Vladimirovna ZHELEZNYAKOVA

1965Aleksandr Vasilyevich ZHELEZNYAKOV

1961Dmitriy Vladimirovich Zubarev

Vladivostok

Search of a flat

05/02/2021

Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok

06/02/2021

23/03/2021 Primorye Regional Court

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), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no sifting procedure of the electronic data

50378/21*

22/09/2021

Gennadiy Borisovich SHULGA

1980Natalya Vladimirovna SHULGA

1981Dmitriy Vladimirovich Zubarev

Vladivostok

Search of the applicants’ flat as part of the criminal investigation against unidentified perpetrators

05/02/2021, Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok

06/02/2021

final decision on the matter was taken by the Primorye Regional Court on 23/03/2021

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

The regional department of the interior opened a criminal investigation on the charges of wilful blocking of transport communications. According to the official version, unidentified persons organised, by means of Internet communications, a gathering. The participants of the gathering blocked the street and, as a result, public buses and ambulances could not follow their routes. The applicant was suspected to be one of the organisers of the gathering. The purpose of the search was to find (1) electronical devices used to document the gathering,

(2) documents pertaining to the crime and

(3) other objects and documents necessary to establish the circumstances of the case.

1556/22*

17/12/2021

Vladimir Viktorovich GUKOV

1974Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov

Taganrog

search under the Operational-Search Activities Act, applicant’s house

22/08/2021, Leninskiy District Court of

Rostov-on-Don

23/08/2021,

the court order was not amenable to appeal

no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/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

Art. 8 (1) - secret surveillance - The applicant complains that his phone conversations were intercepted without any reasonable limits. Interceptions authorised on 26/05/2021, 08/06/2021, 06/07/2021, 14/07/2021, 20/07/2021, 30/07/2021, 10/08/2021, 19/08/2021 by the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don;

Specific defects: the use of “surveillance” or “operative experiment” measures not accompanied by sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness (”quality of law”), the applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising secret surveillance measures against him,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of unlawful search and interception of phone communications

2196/22*

07/12/2021

Gennadiy Andreyevich KOLOTUKHIN

1970Valeriy Viktorovich Kanayev

Diveyevo

Search under the Code of Criminal Procedure; the applicant’s house

11/06/2021, Diveyevskiy District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region

18/06/2021

final decision on the matter was taken by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 16/08/2021

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), particular circumstances: manner of the search, 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

4018/22*

21/12/2021

Aleksandr Gennadyevich KRUGLOV

1976search of the applicant’s flat

30/07/2021, Samarskiy District Court of Samara

26/08/2021

final decision on the matter was taken by the Samara Regional Court on 04/10/2021

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

the court authorised the search with a purpose to discover "materials of extremist nature" and other objects and materials which might be important for the criminal investigation against unidentified perpetrators on the charges of public calls for extremist activities

7855/22*

22/01/2022

Yuriy Andreyevich KOLOTUKHIN

1959Valeriy Viktorovich Kanayev

Diveyevo

search of the applicant’s flat

11/06/2021, Diveyevskiy District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region

18/06/2021

Voznesenskiy District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region, 26/10/2021; Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 20/12/2021

no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no special safeguards for lawyers: no presence of independent observers

18825/22*

19/03/2022

Pavel Valeryevich ROMANOV

1981search of the applicant’s flat

24/12/2021, Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary

09/01/2022

Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary, 28/01/2022; Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 01/03/2022

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 conducted as part of the criminal investigation against the applicant’s former wife

28805/22*

05/09/2022

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich TETERIN

1979Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk

St Petersburg

Search of the applicant’s flat as part of the criminal investigation

28/04/2022, Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic

29/04/2022

final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 10/06/2022

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

the criminal investigation was opened against unidentified perpetrators on the charges of false report of terrorism, according to the search warrant, the purpose of the search was to find objects which might be important for the criminal investigation, as claimed by a police officer in the relevant report

35117/22*

28/06/2022

Anna Valentinovna KIRICHENKO

1975Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov

Taganrog

urgent search in the applicant’s house

15/11/2021, investigator’s order

16/11/2021

Dorogomilovskiy District Court, 22/11/2021; Moscow City Court, 29/03/2022

particular circumstances: manner of the search, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no sifting procedure of the electronic data, 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 conducted in the applicant’s house as part of the criminal investigation in connection with her former husband’s alleged involvement in tabaco smuggling. The former husband is registered in the applicant’s house. According to the applicant, he lives elsewhere. The applicant lives in the house together with her minor children

36676/22*

13/07/2022

Tatyana Viktorovna SPORYSHEVA

1976Irina Vladimirovna Gak

Rostov-on-Don

search of the applicant’s flat

11/03/2022, Pervomayskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don

13/03/2022

Rostov Regional Court, 18/04/2022

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), no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no sifting procedure of the electronic data, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: lawyer not allowed to assist the applicant during the search

The search was conducted based on the assumption of the applicant’s awareness about the suspect R.’s criminal activity (he was charged with "rehabilitation of Nazism") and possible presence of objects related to the said offence in her flat. According to the applicant she has never met R.

38201/22

23/07/2022

Igor Khasanovich ISLAMOV

1976Vladimir Gennadyevich Dvoryak

Abakan

Search of the applicant’s flat

17/11/2021, investigator

18/11/2021

Minusinsk Town Court,19/11/2021.

On 28/12/2021 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 19/11/2021 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. On 18/01/2022 the Minusinsk Town Court found the search in compliance with the law; On 03/03/2022 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the said decision on appeal (received by post on 27/03/2022; the applicant attended the relevant hearing)

no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation, 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 reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation

The applicant was charged with fraud.

42000/22*

16/08/2022

Yevgeniy Artemovich SAUTIN

2004Tumas Arsenovich Misakyan

Moscow

search in the applicant’s flat

04/03/2022, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir

25/03/2022

final decision on the matter was taken by the Vladimir Regional Court on 04/05/2022

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

The search was authorised as part of the criminal investigation in connection with a no war graffiti made under the bridge in Vladimir. The applicant worked for an internet media site that posted the photograph of the graffiti.

43090/22

17/08/2022

Daniil Sergeyevich BOSTYAKOV

2001search of the applicant’s house

27/05/2022,

the investigator’s decision

31/05/2022,

Pskovskiy District Court authorised the search

27/05/2022

Pskov Regional Court, 13/07/2022

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 reasonable suspicion as the basis for 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), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect

The applicant’s father is suspected of committing a drug related offence

55513/22*

08/11/2022

Elvira Ilyasovna SHAMSUTDINOVA

1979Ruslan Azatovich SHAMSUTDINOV

2014Aisha Azatovna SHAMSUTDINOVA

2008Alla Azatovna SHAMSUTDINOVA

2004search of the applicants’ house

11/03/2020, investigator

11/03/2020

on 08//05/202 the Sovetskiy District Court found that the search of the applicants’ house was unlawful. Subsequently, the applicants’ civil claims were granted in part. They were awarded RUB 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage, final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 28/07/2022

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

12082/23

07/03/2023

Elsa Rinatovna NABIULLINA

1988Stanislav Aleksandrovich Seleznev

Samara

search of the applicant’s house within the framework of the criminal investigation

11/08/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan

17/08/2022

final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 08/11/2022

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: 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 search was conducted as part of the criminal investigation on the charges of public justification of terrorism

Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - Search at the journalist’s home in connection with her professional activities ( Nagla v. Latvia , no. 73469/10, 16 July 2013)

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