THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KLABUKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 46603/20 and 2455/22)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 February 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Klabukov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the unlawful search.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
Jurisdiction6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention7. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful search. They relied on Article 8 of the Convention.
8. In the leading cases of Misan v. Russia, no. 4261/04, 2 October 2014 and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, 4 February 2020, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the searches were carried out without relevant and sufficient grounds and in the absence of safeguards that would confine their impact to reasonable bounds.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Misan, cited above, § 70), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the unlawful search; Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 February 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 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
Means of exhaustion
Specific defects
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
46603/20
02/10/2020
Timofey Nikolayevich KLABUKOV
1984
Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich
Moscow
the applicant’s flat
20/04/2020,
District investigator, Izhevsk
the final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Udmurtia Republic on 25/05/2020
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)
7,500
2455/22
06/12/2021
Yevgeniy Sergeyevich KOCHEGIN
1998
Mariya Alekseyevna KHUDOYAROVA
1993
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
the applicants’ flat
22/01/2021,
head of the division investigating organised crime, Volgograd
the final decision on the matter was taken by the Volgograd Regional Court on 07/06/2021
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
7,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.