| Applicant name | GRABETSKAYA AND OTHERS |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 20 |
| Country | Russia |
| Application no. | 13024/18 14324/18 23194/18 53698/18 26458/19 2534/21 23432/21 61574/21 1578/22 28717/22 35623/22 36268/22 37026/22 39474/22 39552/22 39704/22 41014/22 41314/22 43393/22 5084/23 |
| Date | 16/01/2025 |
| Judges | Diana Kovatcheva, President, Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, Mateja Đurović |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | mini-judgment |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy; locational privacy |
| Keywords | Facial recognition; home search |
| Facts of the case | Art. 8 (2) – restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies – use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant of a public event and her subsequent conviction. Art. 8 (1) – unlawful search – a search of the applicant’s residential flat on 06/03/2022, authorised on 05/03/2022 by the Department of Interior – OP No.2 Vishnevskiy of Kazan within a criminal case against unidentified persons concerning knowingly false notification of a terrorist act (the applicant was questioned as a witness). The domestic courts reviewed the investigator’s decision to conduct the search ex post facto and upheld it as lawful (1st instance: 09/03/2022, the applicant was not present/informed); the applicant’s appeal was dismissed in the final instance on 15/04/2022 by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan. Specific defects: no relevant or sufficient reasons: the applicant was not a suspect; no evidence supporting the search authorisation; 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 – not specified in the search order, |
| Analysis | – |
| Other Article violation? | Yes, 5, 6, 10, 11 and P7-2 |
| Damage awarded | 13.000 (2 applicants) |
| Documents | Judgment |