Published on 22 November 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 54714/17
Zoya Feliksovna SVETOVA and Others against Russia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 2 November 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applications concern searches of homes of public activists and journalists. The applicants were not the suspects of the criminal investigations within the framework of which the searches had been carried out.
COMMON QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
1. As regards the searches of the applicants’ homes, did the interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, home and correspondence pursue a legitimate aim, was it “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention?
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
1. (Applications nos. 54714/17 and 81578/17) Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the search carried out in their homes? If so, did it pursue a legitimate aim? Was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14, §§ 102-08, 22 April 2021)?
2. (Application no. 54714/17) Did the applicants have an effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention in respect of their complaints under Article 8 of the Convention related to the search of their home? In particular, did the applicants have a realistic possibility to appeal the court search warrant given the refusal of the investigating authorities to provide them with a copy of that search warrant? Further, did the applicants have an effective remedy in respect of the investigating authorities’ actions given the courts’ refusal to examine their complaint under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia?
3. (Application no. 15278/18) In view of the actions of the police in respect of the applicant during the search and it being filmed and later broadcasted by a TV channel, has there been an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention? If so, did that interference pursue a legitimate aim, was it “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
54714/17
Svetova and Others v. Russia
27/07/2017
Zoya Feliksovna SVETOVA
1959
Moscow
Russian
Anna Viktorovna DZYADKO
1998
(heir of late Viktor Mikhaylovich DZYADKO
1955
Moscow
Russian)
Filipp Viktorovich DZYADKO
1982
Moscow
Russian
Timofey Viktorovich DZYADKO
1985
Moscow
Russian
Tikhon Viktorovich DZYADKO
1987
Moscow
Russian
Karinna Akopovna MOSKALENKO
2.
81578/17
Yeltarenko v. Russia
27/11/2017
Valeriya Ivanovna YELTARENKO
1994
Nizhniy Novgorod
Russian
Tumas Arsenovich MISAKYAN
3.
15278/18
Valeyev v. Russia
22/03/2018
Timur Rafidovich VALEYEV
1984
Moscow
Russian
Kamalia MEHTIYEVA