13079/17;43826/17;45890/17;5518/18;13664/18;43563/18;1720/19;1731/19;2332/19;3828/19;41757/19;44389/19;20144/20;6519/21;25412/21;32407/21;32550/21;49653/21;50368/21;50369/21;52582/21;53917/21;54811/21;55440/21;56808/21;57275/21;58638/21

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PROKAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 13079/17 and 26 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG 23 November 2023 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Prokayeva and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Branko Lubarda, President,  Armen Harutyunyan,  Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 2 November 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table 2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.  The applicants complained of the unlawful search. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention 7.  The applicants complained principally of the unlawful search. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention. 8.  In the leading cases concerning searches of the applicants’ homes (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), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the searches were carried out without relevant and sufficient grounds and in the absence of safeguards that would confine their impact to reasonable bounds. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.  Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well‑established case-law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103‑08 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning conditions of transport of detainees and the lack of a speedy review of detention matters; Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, concerning forced attendance for questioning, and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards excessive length of pre-trial detention). remaining complaints 12.  Some applicants also complained that they had not been afforded an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article 8, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention. Having regard to the above findings, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (see Kruglov, cited above, § 138). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Misan, cited above, § 70), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the unlawful search and other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that it is not necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention raised in connection to their Article 8 complaints; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the unlawful search; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda  Acting Deputy Registrar President     APPENDIX 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/registration   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 Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant/household (in euros)[1]     13079/17 31/01/2017 Olga Nikolayevna PROKAYEVA Pechenev Igor Viktorovich Lipetsk House search 22/09/2016, Gryazy Town Court of the Lipetsk Region 23/09/2016, the Lipetsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint concerning the authorisation of the search on 18/11/2016 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 criminal case against the applicant was closed after the search had been conducted and brought no results   7,500     43826/17 07/06/2017 Natalya Dmitriyevna NAZARETS     House search 14/12/2016, Lechinskiy District Court of Vladivostok 25/01/2017-26/01/2017. Primorye Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint on 27/03/2017. The cassation appeal before the Primorye Regional Court was dismissed on 28/04/2017. 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 evidence supporting the search authorisation, no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search, particular circumstances: manner of the search The search was carried out at night despite the absence of any urgency; the applicant was not a suspect / defendant in the criminal case; the search was conducted as part of a criminal case against the applicant’s son, whose official place of residence was not the applicant’s flat. The courts reasoned that the applicant’s flat was the defendant’s actual place of residence.   7,500     45890/17 13/06/2017 Nikolay Yuryevich BUGLAK Timofeyev Ivan Aleksandrovich Chita search under the Code of Criminal Procedure in the applicant’s flat 12/07/2013, Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Chita 12/07/2013, judicial review of the decision to issue a search warrant, Zabaykalskiy Regional Court, on 13/12/2016, final decision (appellate court)  no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation; no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search, applicant was not a suspect     7,500     5518/18 16/01/2018 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich SILACHEV Abdrashitov Elik Yevgenyevich Orel Home search 03/10/2016, Apastovskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic 30/09/2016, Supreme Court Tatarstan Republic rejected the appeal complaint on 05/09/2017 no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant was 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 carried out early in the morning (between 5.15 a.m. to 6.20 a.m.), the applicant was not present during the search, his mother read and signed the relevant record. At the time of the search, the applicant was not officially a suspect. Subsequently the applicant was charged with theft (of cattle).   7,500     13664/18 12/03/2018 Vera Vladimirovna VOLKOVA     Home search (lawyer’s home) 24/03/2017 Moskovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod 22/03/2017; appeal decision on the search warrant - 28/11/2017, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court; on 22/01/2018 the Moscovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod dismissed the applicant’s complaint under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP) about the authorities’ unlawful actions during the search no special safeguards for lawyers: no special instructions by a judge regarding privileged materials, 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 applicant is an attorney. The search was authorised against her husband who was suspected of committing large-scale fraud.   7,500     43563/18 29/10/2016 Tatyana Aleksandrovna PASHKINA     Home search (lawyer’s home) 24/03/2016 Tsentralniy District Court of Sochi 25/03/2016, appeal against court’s authorisation (Krasnodar Regional Court 12/05/2016), cassation appeal (Krasnodar Regional Court, 29/09/2016) no special safeguards for lawyers: no special instructions by a judge regarding privileged materials, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no evidence supporting the search authorisation, no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search The application is a lawyer.   7,500     1720/19 24/12/2018 Konstantin Kazimirovich LUBNEVSKIY    ZAO ROSSPETSKOMPLEKT       search under the Operational-Search Activities Act (OSAA), business premises 04/07/2018, Head of Police Department in Krasnogorsk 06/07/2018 no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect the operational search activity covered a search and seizure which could have been conducted only within the framework of the criminal proceedings; no criminal proceedings in respect of the applicants were instituted   7,500     1731/19 17/12/2018 Nadezhda Aleksandrovna ABASHIDZE     search under Code of the Criminal Procedure, living premises (applicant’s flat) 15/05/2018, 18/05/2018, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar 22/05/2018, challenge of the judicial authorisation of the search to no avail (10/07/2018 - the Krasnodar Regional Court as a court of appeal) no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: minor severity of the offence, 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 applicant, mother of a new-born child (born on 27/11/2017); according to the applicant, on 30/12/2017 the investigator agreed to question the applicant at her place of residence Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - The applicant was taken to the police station for her questioning and was kept there between 10 a.m. and 1.15 p.m. on 22/05/2018 in the absence of summons. No written record of the detention. The applicant challenged the lawfulness of the police actions to no avail under Art.125 CCrP with no success (final - the Krasnodar Regional Court, 07/08/2018). 9,750     2332/19 17/12/2018 Andrey Fedorovich PETROV Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog inspection conducted by the Federal Security Service in the applicant’s house, car and land plot as an operative and search measure 18/10/2018, Leninskiy District Court in Rostov-on-Don 19/10/2018 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)     7,500   3828/19 09/01/2019 Aleksey Sergeyevich BZHEVSKIY     search of the applicant’s home (the applicant resided in the flat under a lease agreement) 18/05/2018, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar On 11/07/2018 the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar returned the applicant’s appeal without consideration on the merits. No procedural decision was taken by the court. no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting 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)       7,500   41757/19 26/05/2019 Irina Aleksandrovna YANOVITSKAYA     Search of the applicant’s flat in which she had an office 25/09/2018, Leninskiy District Court of Perm On 27/11/2018 the Perm Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 25/09/2018 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 The applicant is an attorney   7,500   44389/19 10/08/2019 Vitaliy Vladimirovich VAVILIN Brovchenko Sergey Vasilyevich Moscow a flat and a house, urgent search in the absence of judicial authorisation, as part of the criminal investigation against the applicant on the charges of embezzlement 14/11/2018, Investigator of Investigating Committee; authorised by the final decisions of the Moscow City Court of 11/02/2019 and 27/03/2019 31/11/2018; the final decisions recognising the lawfulness of the searches were taken by the Moscow City Court on 11/02/2019 and 27/03/2019. no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting 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)     7,500   20144/20 25/02/2020 Aleksey Viktorovich KARPENKO Ivanov Aleksey Valeryevich Krasnodar lawyer’s office 26/06/2019 investigator’s order for urgent search 26/06/2019, 28/06/2019 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar;   05/09/2019 Krasnodar Regional Court no special safeguards for lawyers: no special instructions by a judge regarding privileged materials, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect     7,500   6519/21 28/12/2020 Tatyana Georgiyevna MARTYNOVA Volokh Valeriy Valeryevich Moscow search of the flat 16/07/2020, investigator, 17/06/2020 Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow   16/07/2020, Moscow City Court on 21/09/2020   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     7,500   25412/21 16/04/2021 Ilya Vasilyevich ARISHCHENKOV Artamonov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Moscow search of the flat 02/09/2020, investigator, 04/09/2020, Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow 02/09/2020, Moscow City Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on 01/12/2020 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 applicant is an individual entrepreneur, who provides legal services (no evidence of being a Bar member). The investigation concerns Art. 159 § 4 of the Criminal Code. The Chertanovskiy District Court declared the lawfulness of the search ex post facto.   7,500   32407/21 05/06/2021 Roman Konstantinovich KAMENEV Brester Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Krasnoyarsk search under the OSAA, the applicant’s flat 09/12/2020, the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk date of the search -10/12/2020. The applicant filed a cassation appeal against the decision of 09/12/2020, seeking the full review of the decision to issue a search warrant. On 17/02/2021 the 8th Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction upheld the decision of 09/12/2020. 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     7,500   32550/21 27/05/2021 Ilya Valeryevich KUPTSOV Kashirin Roman Mikhaylovich Pskov search of the flat 24/02/2021, Investigator of the Novgorod Region Department of the Federal Security Service, 02/03/2021 Novgorodskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region 25/02/2021, domestic courts declared ex post facto the lawfulness of the search. Novgorod Regional Court, 15/04/2021. no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: lawyer not allowed to assist the applicant during the search, broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion)     7,500   49653/21 18/09/2021 Gleb Sergeyevich BOBARIKO     house Decision of the investigator of 20/08/2020 20/08/2020;   The applicant appealed against the decision of Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow of 24/08/2020, contesting the lawfulness of the search. Moscow City Court dismissed his appeal on 14/04/2021 particular circumstances: manner of the search, 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: lawyer not allowed to assist the applicant during the search, 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 criminal case against the applicant was instituted on 06/12/2019 on suspicion of fraud. The search was conducted at night. Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - from 21/08/2020 to 21/07/2021, Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, the Moscow City Court, fragility of the reasons employed to extend detention; lack of proper examination of alternative measures;   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the appeal of 21/02/2021 against the detention order was examined on 22/03/2021 9,750   50368/21 22/09/2021 Giya Enverovich KAKABADZE Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok search of the flat court search warrant of 05/02/2021 issued by the Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok 06/02/2021; the Primorye Regional Court, 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       7,500   50369/21 22/09/2021 (3 applicants) Household   Maksim Aleksandrovich KHOZYAYKIN   Kseniya Nikolayevna KHOZYAYKINA   Kira Maksimovna KHOZYAYKINA   Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok search of the flat 05/02/2021 Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok 06/02/2021; Primorye Regional Court on 23/03/2021 no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting 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) The applicants are a human rights defender and his wife and daughter. Their flat was searched in the course of the criminal proceedings against participants of “Otpuskay” manifestations.       7,500   52582/21 11/10/2021 Elik Yevgenyevich ABDRASHITOV     House search 16/07/2019, investigator for particularly important criminal cases of the Investigation Committee of the Republic of Tatarstan 16/07/2019, civil compensation claim (final - Supreme Court judgment of 21/02/2022; RUB 50,000 awarded no special safeguards for lawyers: no presence of independent observers, no special safeguards for lawyers: search conducted by the investigator without the court’s authorisation in circumstances that admitted of no delay   On 19/07/2019 the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, reviewing the search order following the investigator’s notification, declared the search unlawful. Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train, van; 20/04/2021-11/05/2021; 0.26 sq. m of personal space   8,500   53917/21 18/10/2021   and   54811/21 18/10/2021   and   56808/21 18/10/2021 Household   Liliya Yuryevna TROTSENKO   Yuriy Petrovich TROTSENKO   Yekaterina Yevgenyevna TROTSENKO Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog House search; the applicants are family No court authorisation; the Operational-Search Activities Act 24/08/2021; the applicants were not provided with a copy of the house search authorisation  no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no judicial review of the search/search authorisation     7,500   55440/21 26/10/2021 Yuliya Valeryevna KULIKOVA Kozyrev Denis Yevgenyevich Lipovitsy Search under the Code of the Criminal Procedure, search of offices 14/04/2021, Investigator of the Volokolamsk Town Circuit, 26/04/2021 Volokolamsk Town Court of the Moscow Region 14/04/2021;    the applicant complained to the domestic courts under Article 125 of the CCrP. Final - Moscow Regional Court, 24/06/2021 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 reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search     7,500   57275/21 17/11/2021 Yevgeniya Eduardovna LITVINOVA Cherkasov Vitaliy Viktorovich St Petersburg search of the flat 31/01/2021, investigator 31/01/2021;   Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 02/02/2021,   St Petersburg City Court, 28/05/2021 no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search, 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)                 7,500   58638/21 10/11/2021 Yelena Anatolyevna GRECHINA Matyukhin Denis Anatolyevich Taganrog search of the flat 21/07/2021 Taganrog Town Court 06/08/2021, the decision of 21/07/2021 was not amenable to appeal no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting 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)     7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.