Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 09.04.2009 "Дело "Колесниченко (Kolesnichenko) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

ифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 March 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 19856/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Aleksey Petrovich Kolesnichenko ("the applicant"), on 4 May 2004.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, a violation of the right to respect for his home.
4. On 12 September 2006 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
5. The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having examined the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

6. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Perm. At the material time he was a practising advocate and member of the Perm Regional Bar.
7. On 10 June 2003 the prosecutor of the Sverdlovskiy District of Perm opened an investigation into theft of property by a Mr S. The theft had been allegedly committed through the use of forged documents. The applicant acted as counsel for Mr S. in the criminal proceedings against him.
8. The investigator suspected that the documents allegedly forged by Mr S. and a procedural application made by the applicant in the criminal proceedings against Mr S. had been printed on the same device. He commissioned an expert to study those documents. On 21 August 2003 the expert reported that the allegedly forged document and the applicant's application could have been printed "on the same printing device or on different devices having the same or higher resolution..." The expert specified that it was impossible to make any conclusive findings because "the documents did not contain any singularities that could permit identification of the printing device".
9. On 9 February 2004 the investigator asked the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Perm to issue search warrants for the applicant's home in Gorky Street and his late parents' flat in Kuybyshev Street.
10. On 12 February 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Perm granted the investigator's request and issued two warrants authorising searches at the applicant's and his late parents' flats. The entire reasoning of the first warrant concerning the Gorky Street reads as follows:
"The investigator... has submitted an application for a search warrant at the address... which is the place of residence of Mr Kolesnichenko, an advocate with the Perm Regional Bar Association. The investigator argues that certain documents allegedly prepared by Mr G.S. had not in fact been drafted by him but rather fabricated by an electrophotographic process with the probable use of the same device as that used for preparing an application by the advocate Mr Kolesnichenko. This fact is confirmed by an expert report; accordingly, the investigation believes that certain objects of relevance for the investigative acts and the criminal case may be located at that address.
Having studied the materials produced at the hearing, the court considers that the applicati



> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14

	Поделиться:	Tweet