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
1951
Aleksandr 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
1993
Yevgeniy 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
1988
Nikita 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
1974
Yevgeniy Sergeyevich YEROFEYEV
1987
Maksim 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
1989
Andrey 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
1965
Aleksandr Vasilyevich ZHELEZNYAKOV
1961
Dmitriy 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
1980
Natalya Vladimirovna SHULGA
1981
Dmitriy 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
1974
Aleksandr 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
1970
Valeriy 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
1976
search 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
1959
Valeriy 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
1981
search 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
1979
Aleksandr 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
1975
Aleksandr 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
1976
Irina 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
1976
Vladimir 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
2004
Tumas 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
2001
search 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
1979
Ruslan Azatovich SHAMSUTDINOV
2014
Aisha Azatovna SHAMSUTDINOVA
2008
Alla Azatovna SHAMSUTDINOVA
2004
search 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
1988
Stanislav 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy