This judgment concerns four applications against Russia regarding violations of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The first applicant complained of an unlawful search, while all applicants raised other complaints under the Convention. The Court decided to examine the applications jointly, focusing on facts that occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The Court found a violation of Article 8 regarding the unlawful search of the first applicant’s house, stating it was carried out without sufficient grounds and safeguards. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to restrictions on public events, unlawful detention, and registration in a security services database, referencing its well-established case-law. The Court awarded the first applicant EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,800 for costs and expenses, while considering the finding of a violation as sufficient just satisfaction for the second applicant.
The judgment is structured into sections covering the procedure, facts, and legal analysis. It begins by outlining the case’s origin and the parties involved, then summarizes the factual background of the complaints. The legal analysis addresses the joinder of applications, jurisdiction, and alleged violations of specific articles of the Convention. The Court refers to previous case-law to support its findings, particularly regarding unlawful searches and restrictions on fundamental freedoms. The judgment concludes with the application of Article 41, detailing the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants. Compared to previous versions, this judgment consolidates multiple applications and reaffirms established principles concerning unlawful searches and restrictions on public events.
The most important provisions of this decision are those confirming the violation of Article 8 due to the unlawful search, emphasizing the need for relevant and sufficient grounds and adequate safeguards. The findings regarding restrictions on public events, unlawful detention, and registration in security databases are also significant, as they highlight systemic issues and reference established case-law that can be applied in similar cases. The decision also clarifies the Court’s jurisdiction over cases related to events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, providing a clear temporal scope for its rulings. **** This may have implications for pending and future cases involving alleged violations in Russia before its withdrawal, including those involving Ukrainian citizens or events related to the conflict.
