003-5012972-6154357

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 053 (2015)   12.02.2015   Judgments and decisions of 12 February 2015   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three judgments1 and 42 decisions2   : One Chamber judgment is summarised below; for one other Chamber judgment a separate press   release has been issued: Sanader v. Croatia (application no. 66408/12);   one Committee judgment, which concerns issues which have already been submitted to the Court,   and the 42 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc ; they do not appear in this press release.   The judgment summarised below is available in English only.   Yuditskaya and Others v. Russia (application no. 5678/06)   The applicants, Dina Yuditskaya, Natalya Yuditskaya, Aleksandr Kichev, Yelena Lavrentyeva and   Valeriy Frolovich, are Russian nationals who live in Perm (Russia). The case concerned a search of the   law firm for which they work as lawyers.   In May 2005 investigators carried out a search of the premises of the law firm where the applicants   work. The search had been authorised by a court in the context of a criminal investigation into   bribe-taking by court bailiffs. One lawyer working in the applicants’ law firm was suspected of having   signed a fictitious legal assistance contract with a State enterprise which was involved in the alleged   offence. According to the applicants, they voluntarily handed over all documents sought by the   investigators; nevertheless all offices, including those of the applicants who had no relationship with   the State enterprise concerned were searched, and all computers were taken away for one week.   The applicants’ complaint against the search warrant was dismissed by the courts in June 2005.   The applicants complained that the search conducted in their office and the seizure of their   computers containing privileged information had amounted to a violation of their rights, in   particular, under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, the home and the   correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: The applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber   judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a   panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and   deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the   Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   2