on should be granted because it is reasoned. Since no criminal proceedings have been instituted against the advocate Mr Kolesnichenko and no charges have been levelled against him, the investigator's application for a search warrant was lodged in accordance with law.
Sufficient information was submitted to the court in support of the application and, in these circumstances, there are grounds for authorising a search in Mr Kolesnichenko's residence located at [the address on Gorky Street]."
The reasoning of the second warrant concerning Kuybyshev Street was identical, save for the mention that the address in Kuybyshev Street was the registered place of residence of the applicant's late parents and also the registered address of the applicant's office.
11. At 9.40 p.m. on the same day the investigator, accompanied by police officers and two attesting witnesses (ponyatye), came to the applicant's home in Gorky Street. He asked the applicant to hand over the copying device, which the applicant did.
12. The investigator and officers then searched the applicant's flat and seized two computers containing the applicant's private and professional data, a printer, his personal notebook, certain documents relating to the criminal case against Mr S. and to other cases, three business card holders, and other items.
13. The search at the applicant's residence ended at 4 a.m. on 13 February 2004. The investigator and the police then proceeded to search the flat in Kuybyshev Street.
14. According to the search and seizure report of 12 February 2004, the purpose of the search was to find and seize "copying devices (printers, copiers) [and] documents relevant to the criminal case".
15. On 16 February 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Sverdlovskiy District Court. He submitted that the investigator had unlawfully seized belongings of his which were not referred to in the search warrants of 12 February 2004. As a consequence he had been unable to carry on his professional activities and his clients' right to defence had also been impaired.
16. On 3 March 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Perm dismissed the applicant's complaint, finding as follows:
"The judicial decision of 12 February 2004 authorised a search of the flat in Gorky Street. It follows from the [investigator's] application for a search warrant and the judicial decision that the search was necessary because there were sufficient reasons to believe that certain objects relevant to the criminal case could be found at the advocate Mr Kolesnichenko's home. The judicial decision did not contain any concrete list of objects or documents. Thus, the claimant's argument that the investigator seized objects and documents which had not been listed in the judicial decision, is unsubstantiated."
17. It appears that on 26 March, 1, 14 and 27 April 2004 certain seized objects and documents were returned to the applicant.
18. On 27 April 2004 the Perm Regional Court upheld the District Court's decision on appeal. It noted that on 12 February 2004 the District Court authorised search and seizure of unspecified objects and documents and for that reason the investigator had the discretion to determine which objects and documents were relevant to the criminal case. The objects and documents which had been found to be irrelevant had been returned to the applicant.
II. Relevant domestic law
19. Article 25 of the Constitution establishes that the home is inviolable. No one may penetrate into the home against the wishes of those who live there unless otherwise provided for in a federal law or a judicial decision.
20. The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation establishes that a search may be carried out if there are sufficient grounds to believe th
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 12 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
