Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Valov and Others v. Russia*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights due to unlawful searches conducted on the applicants’ properties. The Court found that these searches lacked relevant and sufficient justification and were carried out without adequate safeguards. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to excessive length of pre-trial detention, secret surveillance, delayed review of conviction, and freedom of expression based on its well-established case-law. The Court has joined the applications due to the similarity of the subject matter. The Court awarded the applicants compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court affirmed its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention (before September 16, 2022).
* **Violation of Article 8:** The Court found that the searches violated Article 8 due to the lack of justification and safeguards, referencing previous similar cases against Russia.
* **Other Violations:** The Court also identified other violations based on established case-law, including issues related to pre-trial detention, telephone interception, searches of journalists’ homes, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court decided that there was no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Articles 10 and 13 of the Convention in two of the applications. Other complaints were dismissed.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded specific amounts in compensation to the applicants, dismissing the remainder of their claims.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Unlawful Searches:** The decision reinforces the importance of having relevant and sufficient grounds for searches and the necessity of safeguards to prevent abuse.
* **Established Case-Law:** The decision references and applies existing case-law on issues such as pre-trial detention, surveillance, and freedom of expression, making it useful for understanding the Court’s stance on these matters.
* **Compensation:** The awarded amounts provide a reference point for assessing damages in similar cases.
* **Journalistic Freedom:** The decision emphasizes the protection of journalistic sources and the need for narrowly tailored search warrants in cases involving journalists.
**** This decision highlights Russia’s disregard for human rights and the importance of international legal mechanisms in holding states accountable. The case underscores the need for robust safeguards against arbitrary searches and surveillance, particularly in cases involving journalists and activists.
