Published on 8 November 2021
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 25928/16
Hovhannes TADEVOSYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 28 April 2016
communicated on 19 October 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged arbitrary and unlawful search of the applicant’s home, who had the status of a witness in criminal proceedings instituted on account of wilful infliction of grave bodily harm to a certain S.
On 10 May 2015, upon the investigator’s application, the Lori Regional Court issued a search warrant authorising the search of the applicant’s apartment. On 13 May 2015 a search was carried out by the police. Nothing illegal was found.
On 15 July 2015, upon the investigator’s application, the Lori Regional Court issued another warrant authorising the search of the applicant’s apartment. In its decision the court referred to “operative information” received by the police, according to which the applicant had hidden the instrument of the crime – a knife – in his apartment.
On 18 July 2015 the applicant’s appartement was searched again. No suspicious items were found.
The applicant lodged an appeal against the search warrant of 15 July 2015. By decision of 26 August 2015 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law which was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by the Court of Cassation on 14 December 2015.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the search of 18 July 2015 was arbitrary and unlawful. He alleges, in particular, that the judicial warrant of 15 July 2015 lacked relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the second search in his apartment because it was solely based on information received from un unknown source. He also alleges that the second judicial warrant referred to him as a suspect whereas he had the status of a witness in the criminal proceedings in the context of which the search was carried out.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the search of 18 July 2015? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, were “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons adduced to justify the search of 18 July 2015? Did the Armenian legislation and practice afford individuals adequate and effective safeguards against abuse (see Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 45, ECHR 2005‑IV; Smirnov v. Russia, no. 71362/01, § 44, ECHR 2007‑VII; and Dragan Petrović v. Serbia, no. 75229/10, §§ 69-73, 14 April 2020)?