Communicated on 28 September 2020
Published on 19 October 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 40035/18
Pavel Aleksandrovich KAZAREZ
against Russia
lodged on 13 August 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is a lawyer admitted to the Bar.
The application concerns a search of the applicant’s professional premises carried out without special procedural safeguards despite the requirements of the recently amended Russian legislation on the matter (in particular, presence of an independent observer). The applicant also concerns seizure of the applicant’s electronic devices.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. As regards the search of the applicant’s professional premises, was there an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, home and correspondence and, if yes, was it “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant 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; Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, § 132, 4 February 2020)?
2. In respect of the applicant’s possessions seized during searches, has there been an interference with the applicant’s 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?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy