DUBINSKAYA AND DUBINSKIY v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications

Communicated on 9 February 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 21234/09
Marina Aleksandrovna DUBINSKAYA and Petr Viktorovich DUBINSKIY against Russia
and 11 other applications
(see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

The circumstances of the case

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

Police searched the flats of the applicants under the warrants issued either by an investigator (in urgent cases) or by a court. The applicants’ complaints to the national courts about the alleged unlawfulness and/or manner of execution of search warrants (lack of grounds, wide terms) remained unsuccessful.

1. Application no. 21234/09 Dubinskaya and Dubinskiy v. Russia

On 28 March 2008 a criminal investigation into a car theft was opened. Police arrested D. as the suspect. On the same date police searched the flat where D. lived with his wife, the first applicant. Police also searched D.’s flat, where his father, the second applicant, resided. They further searched a garage rented and used as a workplace by the second applicant who was a car mechanic. On 31 March 2008 the Opochetskiy District Court of the Pskov Region found the searches lawful.

On 4 April 2008 the Dedovicheskiy District Court of the Pskov Region authorised the investigator to search the flats of the two applicants for the second time. The District Court held as follows:

“On 13 August 2007 ... a criminal case ... was opened upon the fact of a car theft ... . On the suspicion of having committed the theft D. and T. were arrested and charged. ... . To justify the request to search the flat of D. investigator I. ... clarified that in the above flat may be located effects and documents stolen from the cars and having evidentiary value. ... . The court ... having examined the submitted documents, considers possible to grant the request to search the flat of D. at the address ... . The search is performed to find real evidence relevant to the case and confirming the guilt of D. in the theft of the car.”

On 4 April 2008 police performed the searches.

The applicants complained under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (“CCrP”) that there had been no sufficient grounds for the searches on 28 March and 4 April 2008. On 9 July 2008 the Dedovicheskiy District Court of the Pskov Region rejected their complaints.

The District Court’s judgment in respect of the first applicant read as follows:

“The searches in the plaintiff’s flat on 28 March and 4 April 2008 were performed within the framework of a criminal case opened against D. The procedure of the performance of a search without judicial authorisation, provided for in Article 165 § 5 of the CCrP, with subsequent notification of the prosecutor and the court, has been complied with. On 31 March 2008 the Opochetskiy District Court found the search lawful. The Dedovicheskiy District Court on 3 April authorised to search the [first applicant]’s flat. The search of 28 March 2008 was performed in the presence of D. and his representative. During the search of 4 April 2008 [the first applicant] was present. Copies of the search records were handed out. ... . Requirements of Article 182 of the CCrP for a search performance were not violated. Therefore, the complaint ... cannot be granted.”

The District Court’s judgment in respect of the second applicant read as follows:

“The searches in the plaintiff’s flat on 28 March and 4 April 2008 were performed within the framework of a criminal case opened against D. The procedure of the performance of a search without judicial authorisation, provided for in Article 165 § 5 of the CCrP, with subsequent notification of the prosecutor and the court, has been complied with. On 31 March 2008 the Opochetskiy District Court found the search lawful. The Dedovicheskiy District Court on 3 April issued a decision to authorise a search of the plaintiff’s flat which was shown to the plaintiff and then a copy of that decision was sent to him on 17 April 2008 upon his request. A decision to search a dwelling outside of the flat is taken by an investigator alone, without judicial authorisation. A reason for a performance of a search is the existence of sufficient data that somewhere or at somebody’s place may be located crime instruments, objects, documents and valuables which may be relevant to a criminal case without indication of their nominations (Article 182 § 1 of the CCrP). The search of 28 March 2008 [of the garage] and the search of 4 April 2008 of the flat were performed in the presence of [the second applicant]. The search of [the second applicant]’s flat on 28 March 2008 was performed in the presence of [the second applicant]’s wife. Copies of the search records were handed out. ... . Requirements of Article 182 of the CCrP for a search performance were not violated. Therefore, the complaint ... cannot be granted.”

On 13 August 2008 the Pskov Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal.

2. Application no. 69441/10 Musin v. Russia

On 27 January 2010 a vice minister of a police department of the Republic of Udmurtia ordered to perform an operational-search activity (search) in the applicant’s flat. The order read as follows:

“The Department on Tax Offences of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Udmurtia has inquiry materials which give grounds to believe that in the actions of the constructor of [company I.] of [the applicant] there are elements indicating to violations of the legislation regulating financial, economic, business and commercial activities which may be subject to criminal sanctions. During the inquiry it was established that objects, documents proving illegal activities of [the applicant] may be found at the address ...

[I, the vice minister of the interior of the Republic of Udmurtia on the economic security... order:

1. to perform an inspection of living, manufacturing, storage, commercial and other office premises, other places of storage and usage of the property of [the applicant], located at ... with the objective to find and seize objects and documents relevant to the inquiry; ...

3. during the inspection to seize objects and documents relevant to the inquiry.”

On 10 February 2010 police searched the applicant’s flat. The applicant brought to a court a civil law complaint about the unlawful search order.

On 5 March 2010 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Izhevsk refused to examine the applicant’s civil complaint. It considered that the applicant should have submitted a complaint under Article 125 of the CCrP regulating complaints against unlawful actions of, inter alia, law-enforcement agents. On 7 April 2010 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtia (“SCRU”) quashed the above decision on the ground that the applicant also had the right to challenge the search order by a civil action. The SCRU remitted the case for a new consideration. On 6 May 2010 the District Court transferred the case to the SCRU as having the competence over cases having some classified information.

On 4 June 2010 the SCRU terminated the proceedings. The court held that a person may file a civil action to obtain a redress of an alleged violation of his or her rights or interests. It then found that the applicant only sought to declare the search order unlawful and did not claim any redress of the alleged violation of his rights. On 14 July 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation agreed with the SCRU in that the proceedings should be terminated, but on the other ground. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered that the applicant should have filed an action under Article 125 of the CCrP regulating complaints against unlawful actions of, inter alia, law-enforcement agents.

3. Application no. 10825/11 Silivanov v. Russia

The applicant is a practicing lawyer, but is not a Bar member. He rendered legal services to a Mrs M. who later became subject to a criminal investigation of illegal real estate transactions.

On 16 July 2010 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg authorised to search the applicant’s residential flat in the following terms:

“As a result of the performed investigative and operational-search activities it was established that [the applicant] is an accomplice in the commission of the above mentioned offences with whom Mrs M. keeps close relationships and who may hold documents and other information about the real estate transactions carried out by Mrs M. ...

Having examined the submitted documents the court considers that the application of [the investigator] for authorization of the search of the flat at [the address] of [the applicant’s] place of registration is well founded and should be granted because at the indicated flat may be located objects and documents relevant to the investigation.”

On 20 July 2010 police searched the applicant’s flat, but found and seized nothing.

The applicant appealed against the court search order of 16 July 2010 claiming that it had been groundless, excessively wide and disproportionate. The applicant also relied on the Court’s case-law requiring special procedural safeguards to be available in respect of searches of lawyers’ premises. On 11 August 2010 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court had an appeal hearing. The Regional Court amended the first instance court’s text in that the applicant was not but could be Mrs M.’s accomplice and upheld the rest of the search order. It did not address the other arguments.

4. Application no. 73629/13 Mezentsev v. Russia

The applicant is a practicing lawyer, but is not a Bar member. On 27 December 2011 company P. hired the applicant to represent them in a tax dispute. On 6 August 2012 tax authorities reported to the police about an alleged offence of tax evasion by M., director of company P. On 10 September 2012 police decided to conduct “operational-search activities” upon the above report. On 9 October 2012 the District Court allowed police to perform an operational-search activity – an “inspection” of the applicant’s residential flat. The District Court held that during the tax dispute M. had submitted forged documents showing overstated expenses of company P. and that “at the present time there are grounds to believe that at the residence address of [the applicant] may be located documents and objects, including in the electronic form, demonstrating illegal activities of M.”

On 10 October 2012 police inspected the applicant’s residential flat but found nothing. On the same date police performed an “on-site examination” (осмотр места происшествия) in the applicant’s office. Police seized two documents and the applicant’s hard drive containing information about company P., as well as other companies and businessmen represented by the applicant in other tax disputes. The tax authorities subsequently used the information from the hard drive as evidence in at least three of their disputes with the applicant’s clients. In the end of March 2013 police returned the hard drive to the applicant. No criminal charges were ever brought against M., director of company P.

The applicant complained about the unlawful police actions under Article 125 of the CCrP. The applicant argued, in particular, that, even if he was not a Bar member, he was a lawyer permitted by law to render legal services and that he owed the duty of confidentiality to his clients. Therefore, during the search of his office special procedural safeguards previewed for lawyers members of a Bar such as prior court authorisation should have been complied with. On 18 March 2013 the District Court dismissed his complaint. It found no irregularities in the procedure of the on-site examination of the applicant’s office. The District Court further held that a prior court authorisation of a search was required only in respect of Bar members, while the applicant was not one. On 30 April 2013 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal endorsing the reasoning of the first instance court.

5. Application no. 7072/14 Kozhakhmetovy v. Russia

On 29 March 2013 at about 9 p.m. the second applicant was driving a car with a friend. Police officers stopped the car, escorted it to a police station and searched it there. In the car police found a match-box with marijuana, but the second applicant asserted that the match-box had been planted into his car while he was in the police station. Police then took the second applicant to his house where his father (the first applicant) and other family lived. At about 2 a.m. of 30 March 2013 police performed at the house an “on-site examination” (осмотр места происшествия). They found a plastic bag with some substance which later turned out to be a mixture of dried herbs.

The applicants complained about the search of their house on the grounds that it had been performed without their consent or a judicial authorisation and during the night time. On 7 May 2013 the Shatoyskiy District Court of the Chechen Republic terminated the court proceedings on the grounds that the prosecuting authorities would investigate the facts at the basis of the applicants’ complaints. On 17 July 2013 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision and examined the complaint in the merits. It found the examination lawful on the grounds that after having found some marijuana in the second applicant’s car police had been justified to inspect urgently his house.

6. Application no. 16326/15 Malevanaya v. Russia

The applicant is the director of company K. On 25 September 2014 at about 7.20 a.m. Federal Security Service’s (Федеральная служба безопасности – “FSB”) officers came to perform an “inspection” of the applicant’s flat. They showed to her an inspection order issued by an FSB senior officer and a court authorisation of that inspection order. The applicant was not provided with copies of the above orders but was allowed to write down extracts from them. The FSB inspection order held as follows:

“[FSB has] received sufficient data indicating to elements of the crime proscribed under Article 193.1 para. 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“CCRF”). The data received relate to the activities of [company A.]. With the objective to determine the accuracy of the data received and in order to decide on the existence of grounds to open a criminal case ... ordered: 1. to perform an inspection of a residential flat located at the address ... . 2. to entrust the performance of the inspection to FSB officers ... 3. during the inspection performed under Article 15 para. 1 of the [Federal Law on Operational-Search Activities] to seize objects, materials (including documents) and messages which may demonstrate elements of an unlawful action under preparation or being committed, of an event or an action creating a threat to the state, economic security of the Russian Federation.”

The court order authorising the inspection order was issued by the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court on 23 September 2014. The Regional Court held as follows:

“While performing operational-search activities the [FSB] received information implicating [the applicant] and other unidentified people in the commission of foreign currency transactions by transfer of financial means in foreign and Russian currencies to the accounts of non-residents under the name of company A. with the use of forged documents. It is established that [the applicant] has information about the above unlawful activity and persons involved in the commission of this crime. At the place of [the applicant’s] residence are located documents and objects which are used for the unlawful activity. Actions of the people under review reveal elements of a serious crime proscribed under Article 193.1 para. 3 of the CCRF which mandatorily requires to perform the pre-investigation activity. Given that there is not enough information to decide on the need to open a criminal case, and that it was impossible to verify the information by means already taken, ... ordered: to permit [the FSB] to perform in respect of [the applicant] [the operational-search activity consisting in] the inspection of premises, buildings, constructions, land plots and transport means at the address ...”

7. Application no. 27001/15 Deryabin v. Russia

Police were looking for a robbery suspect, Ch., who, according to an “operational source” lived in the applicant’s flat. On 27 October 2014 investigator B. requested a court to authorise a search of the applicant’s flat. Police also claimed to have grounds to believe that at the flat they could locate the gun used during the robbery and money and objects taken from the victim. On the same date the Sosnovskiy District Court of the Chelyabinsk Region authorised the request. It held, in particular:

“... considering that at the place of Ch.’s residence may be located traces of the crime and other traces and objects relevant for the present criminal case, there are grounds to search the place of his residence, that is why the investigator’s request must be granted”.

On 29 October 2014 police came to the applicant’s flat. As nobody answered the door, police broke it open. Having found nobody at the applicant’s flat police checked other flats on the same floor and in one of them they discovered Ch. in a bathroom.

The applicant complained to the police authorities about the unlawful search of his flat. In November 2014 police agreed that the search had been unlawful because it had been performed in his absence.

The applicant also appealed the court search order of 27 October 2014 as groundless. On 2 December 2014 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court quashed the court search order of 27 October 2014 on the ground that the District Court had failed to notify investigator B. and a prosecutor about the court hearing of 27 October 2014 and remitted the case for a new examination.

On 25 December 2014 the District Court issued a new authorisation of the search of the applicant’s flat. It held, in particular, as follows:

“... considering that according to the provided information Ch. may be located at [the applicant’s flat address] and there can be also located crime instruments, documents and assets which could be relevant for the criminal case, there are grounds to search the flat at [the applicant’s address].”

On 6 February 2015 the Regional Court upheld the court search order on appeal.

8. Application no. 52864/15 Ivanova v. Russia

Police were looking for L. (the applicant’s brother) who in March 2014 had allegedly kidnapped his minor son from the former wife. On 29 December 2014 investigator K. ordered to urgently search the applicant’s flat. On the same date police searched the apartment. They found no one but seized the applicant’s hard drive, notebook, tablet computer, mobile and personal diary. The investigator ordered to attach the above belongings as evidence in the criminal case against the applicant’s brother and refused her requests to return her assets or to copy her clients’ database (the applicant worked as an insurance agent).

(a) Proceedings on lawfulness of the search

In accordance with the national law the investigator had to request a court’s approval of the lawfulness of the urgent search within the next twenty-four hours. From 30 December 2014 to 5 February 2015 the applicant was regularly contacting the Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg to ask whether the investigator had filed the request to approve her search order. The District Court’s registry denied having received such a request. On 5 February 2015 the applicant went to the District Court and received there a copy of judgment dated 31 December 2014 whereby the District Court had confirmed the lawfulness of the search order in respect of her flat. The District Court held as follows:

“... According to the materials of the criminal case the investigation authorities had sufficient information to believe that L. and his son could be hiding in the flat of his sister ... and that at the above address could be located objects and documents relevant to the criminal case.

Having examined copies of the investigation file documents the court finds lawful and reasonable the search which had been performed in the conditions of urgency.

The investigative actions were performed by a competent public official ...

The court does not find any serious violations of the norms of the CCrP which could be grounds to refuse the request.

Therefore, the court believes that the performed investigative actions should be declared lawful and reasonable, because an application for a requisite [prior] court authorisation would have significantly delayed their performance which could have impeded the establishment of the truth in the case.”

The applicant appealed the decision of 31 December 2014. In particular, she asserted that the search order contained no explanation why she was implicated in her brother’s actions and why the search was to be performed so urgently without a prior court authorisation. Despite the national law, she was not allowed to be assisted by a lawyer during the search because the investigator refused to wait an hour for him/her to arrive. The applicant then claimed that in breach of the national law requirements, investigator K. had sought a court approval of the search order more than twenty four hours since the search. The applicant further complained that she had been prevented from participation in the court hearing concerning the lawfulness of the search order. The applicant also complained about seizure of her assets, especially the notebook with her clients’ database which cost her loss of income. The applicant, an insurance agent, pointed to the confidentiality of personal data of her clients.

On 15 April 2015 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the court decision on appeal. It found the investigator’s decision to perform an urgent search lawful and reasonable. The Regional Court noted that the national law did not require the applicant’s mandatory notification and presence during a court hearing in respect of the lawfulness of the search. It also dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s allegation that the investigator had failed to respect the twenty four hours’ time limit for notification of the court about the search performed urgently. The Regional Court did not address other arguments raised by the applicant.

(b) Proceedings on manner of performance of the search

On 30 December 2014 the applicant also complained to a court about the manner of the search. She complained, inter alia, that there were no grounds for a search of her flat, especially in the conditions of urgency. The applicant complained about violations of the national law procedure regarding the court notification about the search and her right to be assisted by a lawyer. Finally, she complained about the seizure of her assets, especially the hard drive and notebook with the database of her clients which prevented her from working and violated the confidentiality of her clients’ personal information. On 8 September 2015 the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. The District Court held that the search had been performed with the aim to find the applicant’s brother and his minor son as well as other objects and documents relevant to the criminal case. The District Court dismissed the complaint about seizure of the applicant’s assets on the ground that the seized objects had been attached as real evidence in the criminal case and would be examined by an expert. It found unsubstantiated the applicant’s complaints about lack of access to a lawyer and refusal to copy her clients’ database as the search record signed by her did not contain any mention of those complaints and she did not file any separate applications to that effect. On 12 November 2015 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of 8 September 2015 endorsing the first instance court’s reasoning.

9. Application no. 60275/15 Pylayev v. Russia

On 30 September 2014 Kh. gave a bribe to B. under police surveillance. Police transferred the results of their operational-search activities to the investigative authorities on 3 October 2014. On 8 October 2014 a criminal case into Kh.’s bribe was opened. The applicant, a high rank police officer, was suspected of having facilitated the bribe. On the same day the investigator ordered to urgently search the applicant’s house without a prior court authorisation to avoid information leakage. During the search police seized the applicant’s mobiles, data storage devices, certain documents and an amount of money. On 9 October 2014 the investigator notified the Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok about the urgent search of the applicant’s flat and asked it to confirm the lawfulness of the search. On the same day the District Court declared the search lawful. It relied on the pre-investigation information that the applicant had facilitated the bribe to justify the search of his flat. As for the urgency, the District Court referred to the nature of the investigated crime and position of the applicant. The District Court found no violations in the procedure of the search order. On 16 May 2015 the Primorskiy Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.

10. Application no. 14410/16 Vovchenko and Ignatova v. Russia

On 23 March 2013 B. complained to police that some people had been blackmailing him for money. According to a police report of 8 April 2013, they suspected the first applicant. On 10 April 2013 he was arrested. At about 10 p.m. on the same day police urgently searched the flat of the second applicant (the wife of the first applicant) and seized his mobile. Investigator Ya. stated in the search warrant that they were looking for “objects and documents received as a result of the crime, weapons, ammunition supplies and drugs”.

On 11 April 2013 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd declared the search unlawful. The District Court stated that since B.’s complaint on 23 March 2013 and police report of 8 April 2013 police had had enough of time to seek a court authorisation for the search. The District Court further noted the lack of any explanation for performing of the search during the night time. It finally doubted the grounds and the aim of the search as the objects sought (see above) could not have been relevant to the criminal case of blackmailing. On 18 June 2013 the Volgograd Regional Court examined the prosecutor’s appeal against the judgment of 11 April 2013. It held that under the law the search did not depend on the charges against the person whose residence had been searched. The Regional Court also considered that the moment when a crime was committed or a criminal case officially opened had not been relevant for the determination of the lawfulness and urgency of a search. Based on the above the Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment. It then found that the procedure for ordering and notifying about the search had been complied with; the investigating authorities had sufficient grounds to believe that “objects and documents received as a result of the crime, weapons, ammunition supplies and drugs, data storage devices and drafts proving the facts of money extortion” could have been located at the first applicant’s residence. The Regional Court agreed that the search had been urgent because during the night time police could not have obtained a court search order while any delay would have led to destruction of objects and documents relevant to the criminal case.

11. Application no. 14675/16 Popova v. Russia

On 11 April 2014 an investigation into the murder of the applicant’s mother-in-law was opened. In April and May 2014 the applicant was questioned as a witness. On 19 February police arrested G. as the murder suspect. The latter confessed to the murder and claimed that the applicant had hired him. On 20 February 2015 investigator S. urgently searched the applicant’s flat in her absence.

On 21 February 2015 the Lobnenskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region found the search order lawful. The District Court held as follows:

“The court ... concludes that the investigator had sufficient reasons to believe that at the above-indicated address could be located objects and documents relevant to the criminal case, therefore the investigator’s decision about the need to perform this investigative action in the conditions of urgency should be declared justified.”

On 3 September 2015 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment of 21 February 2015 on appeal.

12. Application no. 39456/16 Pashkina and others v. Russia

On 24 March 2016 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi authorised to search the law office of the applicants within the framework of criminal investigation into deliberate bankruptcy allegedly committed by a third person, M. The court held as follows:

“... according to the results of operational-search activities, submitted by the [local department of the FSB] the above mentioned documents are located at the law office [of the applicants at the address...]. In order to establish factual circumstances of the committed offence and to collect evidence for the criminal investigation, there are grounds to search the law office [of the applicants at the address..., where can be kept documents and other objects relevant for the criminal case and containing information about financial and business activities of company T. during the period between 2008 and 2015, location of possessions of company T., possessions acquired or disposed of by company T. and people related to disposal of company T.’s possessions.”

On 25 March 2016 police and FSB officers searched the applicants’ law office and seized a number of litigation cases and the information database from all the office computers. The applicants appealed against the search order complaining about its wide terms and seizure of legally privileged documents not related to company T. On 12 May 2016 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the lawfulness of the search order of 24 March 2016.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention about unlawful searches of their premises. The applicants in cases 10825/11, 73629/13 and 39456/16 who are lawyers additionally complain that there were no procedural safeguards available to them during the searches of their premises.

The applicants complain about lack of an effective judicial review of the unlawful searches.

The applicants in cases 21234/09 and 52864/15 complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about unlawful seizure of their assets and lack of effective remedies available to them in this respect.

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. As regards the searches of the applicants’ premises, was the interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, home and correspondence “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 applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints 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 searches in the present cases?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

10825/11, 73629/13 and 39456/16

Were the applicants afforded sufficient procedural safeguards against interference with professional secrecy (see Smirnov v. Russia, no. 71362/01, §§ 44 and 48, 7 June 2007; Kolesnichenko v. Russia, no. 19856/04, §§ 31‑35, 9 April 2009; Yuditskaya and Others v. Russia, no. 5678/06, §§ 27-31, 12 February 2015)?

21234/09 and 52864/15

1. In respect of the applicants’ assets seized during searches, has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Smirnov, §§ 58-59, cited above)?

2. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

Appendix

No.

Application No.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by 

21234/09

16/02/2009

Marina Aleksandrovna DUBINSKAYA

27/08/1977

Velikiye Luki, Pskov Region

Petr Viktorovich DUBINSKIY

21/01/1952

Velikiye Luki, Pskov Region

Denis Yevgenyevich KOZYREV 

69441/10

02/11/2010

Marsel Valiyevich MUSIN

17/05/1945

Izhevsk, Udmurtiya

Aleksandr Vladimirovich SEMIN 

10825/11

10/02/2011

Aleksey Vladimirovich SILIVANOV

25/04/1977

Yekaterinburg

73629/13

30/10/2013

Sergey Vilyevich MEZENTSEV

10/01/1975

Orsk, Orenburg Region

7072/14

15/12/2013

Isa Kozhakhmetovich KOZHAKHMETOV

03/12/1953

Khal-Keloy, Chechen Republic

Idris Isayevich KOZHAKHMETOV

19/05/1986

Khal-Keloy, Chechen Republic

Ilyas Yakubovich TIMISHEV  

16326/15

24/03/2015

Olga Yuryevna MALEVANAYA

22/05/1983

Verkhnyaya Pyshma, Sverdlovsk Region

27001/15

21/05/2015

Oleg Gennadyevich DERYABIN

09/07/1971, Chelyabinsk Region

52864/15

15/10/2015

Svetlana Vladimirovna IVANOVA

12/03/1978

Vsevolzhsk, Leningrad region

60275/15

21/11/2015

Ruslan Sergeyevich PYLAYEV

15/09/1976

Vladivostok,

14410/16

05/08/2013

Vladimir Vladimirovich VOVCHENKO

23/12/1979

Volgograd

Natalya Vladimirovna IGNATOVA

27/05/1973

Volgograd

14675/16

18/02/2016

Nataliya Fedorovna POPOVA

19/07/1958

Novoye Grishino, Moscow Region

Konstantin Viktorovich BARANOVSKIY           

39456/16

24/06/2016

Tatyana Aleksandrovna

PASHKINA

07/05/1953

Krasnodar

Yevgeniy Anatolyebich LEVIN

26/01/1969

Krasnodar

Danila Aleksandrovich PRIVALOV

21/01/1985

Krasnodar

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy