| Applicant name | POGREBNYY AND OTHERS |
| Applicant type | Natural and legal persons |
| Number of applicants | 4 (natural person and three of his legal persons) |
| Country | Ukraine |
| Application no. | 42419/04 |
| Date | 19/10/2023 |
| Judges | Mārtiņš Mits, President, Lətif Hüseynov, Kateřina Šimáčková |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | No legal basis; no legitimate interest |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy |
| Keywords | Seizure |
| Facts of the case | The case concerns various aspects of the criminal proceedings against the first applicant, including seizure and attachment of property that he and the other applicants had at their disposal. It raises issues under Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | There is a discussion about the exhaustion of domestic remedies, which the ECtHR dismisses. The Court then continues with what is basically its two sentence judgement: ‘Regardless of the alleged seizure of the first applicant’s passport for travelling abroad, given that it is not entirely clear whether one was issued to him, the Court notes that the driving licence seized from him was also a document required for everyday use. Its deprivation therefore represented a continuing interference with his private life. The Court also notes that the Government did not suggest that the retention of the applicant’s personal documents after the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against him had had a legal basis or pursued a legitimate aim.’ Consequently, it finds a violation of Article 8 ECHR. What is interesting is that although untill very recently, the Court would never hold a violation on the ground that there was no public interest involved in the interference with a human rights, this has changed recently. This case is an example of this new approach by the Court. Also, the Court only finds a violation with respect to the first applicant, not to the legal persons. The application also invokes Articles 3, 5, 6 and 34 ECHR, Article 1 and 3 of Protocol 1, Article 2 of Protocol 4 and Article 4 of Protocol 7. The Court, however, finds that the facts do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | That the respondent State is to pay the first applicant, within three months, EUR 1,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; |
| Documents | Judgment |