| Applicant name | YURGILEVICH AND OTHERS |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Number of applicants | 17 |
| Country | Russia |
| Application no. | 75231/17, 1570/18, 1829/18, 21841/18, 32581/18, 41958/18, 47107/18, 49955/18, 53031/18, 14440/19, 11380/20, 13665/20, 15310/20, 11434/21, 13737/21, 50533/21, 4241/22 |
| Date | 07/09/2023 |
| Judges | Lorraine Schembri Orland, President, Frédéric Krenc, Davor Derenčinović |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | ? |
| Type of privacy | Locational privacy; procedural privacy |
| Keywords | Search appartment; legal assistance |
| Facts of the case | 17 applicants complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). Some of them also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. |
| Analysis | The Court reiterates that absence of an arrest record must in itself be considered a most serious failing. 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. A violation of Article 5 ECHR is found. Then, interestingly, it stresses: ‘In some applications the 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 and its Protocols in the light of its findings in (§15)’ and then a long list of jurisprudence follows. It does not provide further analysis or details, rather than that all of these complaints apparently are admissible and bring to light a violation of the Convention . In the long table of complaints in the appendix of the judgement, one of the complaints concerns: ‘Art. 8 (1) – unlawful search – investigator’s decision on 24/03/2021; the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don found the searches lawful on 26/03/2021; searches in the applicant’s apartment on 25/03/2020; the applicant appealed against the decision of the District Court, to no avail. Final decision: Rostov Regional Court, 10/06/2021. No adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: lawyer not allowed to assist the applicant during the search, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: no effective judicial review of the search.’ Because there is no admissibility decision on this point, no further details are available. In the table in the appendix, per claim, a requested amount of damages is indicated. Again, the ECtHR simply decides to accept those, without further discussion or reasoning. The judgement is efficient, but lacks any form of legal reasoning. Essentially, it undermines the legitimacy of the ECtHR. Even although substantially, there may have been reasons in abundance to come to a violation of the Convention, the judgements should provide arguments for that conclusion. |
| Other Article violation? | Many |
| Damage awarded | 6,000 for violation Article 8 ECHR alone |
| Documents | Judgment |