Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AVANESYAN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life Article 8-1 - Respect for home) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Avanesyan v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 19856/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

  In previous Russian cases it was the vagueness and excessively broad terms of search warrants giving the authority executing them unrestricted discretion in determining the scope of the search that were considered to be the decisive element for the finding of a violation of Article 8 (see Kolesnichenko v. Russia, no. 19856/04, § 33, 9 April 2009; Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 216, 22 December 2008; and Smirnov v. Russia, no. 71362/01, § 47, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

  In previous Russian cases it was the vagueness and excessively broad terms of search warrants giving the authority executing them unrestricted discretion in determining the scope of the search that were considered to be the decisive element for the finding of a violation of Article 8 (see Kolesnichenko v. Russia, no. 19856/04, § 33, 9 April 2009; Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 216, 22 December 2008; and Smirnov v. Russia, no. 71362/01, § 47, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 20602/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

  However, the mere fact that an application for a warrant has been subject to initial judicial scrutiny will not in itself necessarily amount to a sufficient safeguard against abuse (see Gerashchenko v. Ukraine, no. 20602/05, § 130, 7 November 2013; Iliya Stefanov, cited above, § 39; and Tamosius (dec.), cited above).

• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

  The burden is on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an "effective" one (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 93-96, 10 January 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 41604/98

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und der Wohnung (Einsatz von Durchsuchungen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

  As regards the proportionality requirement, the criteria the Court has taken into consideration in determining whether it was met include, but are not limited to, the severity of the offence in connection with which the search was effected, the manner and circumstances in which the order was issued, in particular whether the warrant was based on a reasonable suspicion, and the content and scope of the order, having particular regard to the nature of the premises searched and the safeguards taken in order to confine the impact of the measure to reasonable bounds (see Iliya Stefanov, cited above, § 38, and Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, §§ 44-45, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 64209/01

  PEEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

  Moreover, the prosecution of police officers, even if successful, was possible only in respect of their own actions and could not have led to a substantive review of the lawfulness of the judicial authorisation for the search (see Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 72, 5 July 2012, and Peev v. Bulgaria, no. 64209/01, § 70, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 65755/01

  ILIYA STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

  In that case the notion of an effective remedy does not necessarily presuppose the possibility of challenging the issuing of the warrant prior to conducting the search (see Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria, no. 65755/01, § 59, 22 May 2008, and Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

  This "inspection" being no different in its manner of execution and its practical effects from a search, the Court finds that it amounts, regardless of its characterisation under domestic law, to an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his home (see Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, § 103, 7 November 2013).
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 65938/09

  KEMEVUAKO v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

  Such first communication would in principle have interrupted the running of the six-month time-limit (see Yartsev v. Russia (dec.), no. 13776/11, 26 March 2013, and Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, § 19, 1 June 2010).
• EGMR, 19.09.2002 - 62002/00

  TAMOSIUS contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

  In that case the notion of an effective remedy does not necessarily presuppose the possibility of challenging the issuing of the warrant prior to conducting the search (see Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria, no. 65755/01, § 59, 22 May 2008, and Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 13776/11

  YARTSEV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 7072/14

  KOZHAKHMETOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The first and foremost among them is the guarantee of review by a judge or other independent and impartial decision-making body capable to examine the existence of relevant and sufficient reasons for the search and its compatibility with the legal requirements (see Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06, §§ 30-34, 18 September 2014, Kruglov and Others, cited above, §§ 134-35).

  Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - the initial court order authorising the search was not amenable to judicial review (Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06,.

• EGMR, 19.12.2024 - 29550/17

  GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY

  In particular, once the search has been carried out or the person concerned has become otherwise aware of the existence of the search order, there must exist a procedure whereby the person can challenge the legal and factual grounds of the order and obtain redress in the event that the search was unlawfully ordered or executed (see Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06, § 29, 18 September 2014).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  [ENG]

  Indeed, the OSAA does not provide for the possibility of lodging an appeal against such a decision, even after the individual concerned has come to know of its existence (see Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06, § 30, 18 September 2014).

• EGMR, 13.02.2025 - 22790/19

  DENYSYUK v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 97 The Court emphasises, however, that when dealing with requests by surveillance subjects to disclose the decisions authorising covert measures in respect of them, the authorities are required to strike a proper balance between the interests of these persons in vindicating their Article 8 rights and the public interest in detecting and prosecuting serious offences (see, among other authorities, Zubkov and Others, cited above, § 129, and Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06, § 29, 18 September 2014).
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 698/19

  SÄRGAVA v. ESTONIA

  The Court has doubts as to whether in such circumstances the review by the prosecutor's office would meet the requisite standards of independence (compare Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06, § 32, 18 September 2014, and Panteleyenko v. Ukraine, no. 11901/02, § 80, 29 June 2006), and it is not clear whether a possible refusal by the prosecutor's office would be subject to a judicial review.
• EGMR, 10.07.2025 - 2599/16

  KORNIYETS v. UKRAINE and 2 other applications

  Rn. 69 While there are obvious valid reasons for excluding the person whose home is to be searched from participation when there is a prior application for a warrant for the search (see Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06, § 29, 18 September 2014), there appears to be no justification why the same strict limitations should be applied in the course of a retrospective judicial review.
• EGMR, 05.09.2024 - 39503/17

  MUKHTARLI v. AZERBAIJAN AND GEORGIA

  Rn. 212 The Court reiterates that any measure - if it is no different from a search in its manner of execution and its practical effects - amounts (regardless of its characterisation under domestic law) to interference with an applicant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06, § 39, 18 September 2014, and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, § 123, 4 February 2020).
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 69762/12

  BUDAK v. TURKEY

  On the contrary, his complaint was that the search had lacked a legal basis and had thus been unlawful owing to the absence of two attesting witnesses, whose presence was a statutory requirement under Article 119 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06, § 31, 18 September 2014, and compare Xavier Da Silveira v. France, no. 43757/05, § 46, 21 January 2010).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 44045/05

  [ENG]

  The review did not touch upon the legal and factual grounds for the underlying judicial authorisation, that is, whether there were relevant and sufficient reasons for authorising covert surveillance (see, for similar reasoning, Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06, §§ 31-33, 18 September 2014, concerning an "inspection" of the applicant's flat under the OSAA).
• EGMR - 15962/15 (anhängig)

  SAMARA LRO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications

  As regards the applicants in case no. 29295/14 whose premises were searched, was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, taken on its own or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention? In particular, what was the legal basis for that measure and was it proportionate to a legitimate aim? Also, did the applicants have an effective remedy for their complaint about the unlawful searches of their homes and place of worship, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, taken together with Article 8 (see Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06, §§ 25-36, 18 September 2014)?.
• EGMR, 08.09.2022 - 1434/14

  JANSONS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 23.01.2025 - 31175/14

  REZNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 41085/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.07.2024 - 53989/17

  FRIDMAN v. RUSSIA and 19 other applications
• EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 8826/20

  NAMAZLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 22.01.2026 - 25928/16

  TADEVOSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 32394/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.06.2025 - 26371/16

  KYYKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.01.2025 - 749/07

  RUDNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.11.2022 - 18421/20

  KUKLASE v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 74320/10

  CHEPRUNOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 21234/09

  DUBINSKAYA AND DUBINSKIY v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications
• EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 39951/08

  BRÂNDUSE v. ROMANIA
• EGMR - 33289/19 (anhängig)

  ABRAHAMYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 20.01.2026 - 55672/22

  ÇELA v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 03.05.2018 - 38238/13

  PLETOSU HALUNGESCU v. ROMANIA