PDF

AndriySAVCHAK,

Judge, the Peremyshlya District Court of Lviv Region, Candidate of Law Sciences

PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS DURING THE CONDUCT OF SEARCHES

The article focuses on the importance of observance of the right to respect for a person’s home during the conduct of searches. The focus is on summarizing the requirements that the European Court of Human Rights is important and without which the national authorities will not be able to guarantee the rights provided for in Article 8 of the Convention.

The main reasons for most violations established by the European Court of Human Rights in conducting searches were, first of all, bad quality of law and violation of the procedure for carrying out searches. The change in the criminal procedural legislation in 2012 significantly improved the quality of the law. However, the observance of human rights during the search also depends on other factors, in particular, the validity of decisions on the permission to conduct a search and compliance with the conduct of searches.

The investigating judge, giving permission to conduct a search, carries out preliminary supervision over observance of human rights. However, an important role in guaranteeing human rights lies with the court hearing the case. Court must supervise the feasibility of conducting a search and observing the procedure for conducting the search. An adequate response to the violation of human rights by national courts is a factor that can greatly reduce the amount number of appeals to the European Court of Human Rights.

Key words: home, admissibility, in accordance with the law, legitimate aim, necessary in a democratic society, proportionality, guarantees against any abuse and arbitrariness.

References

A practical guide to admissibility. Conseil de l'Europe / Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, 2014 [Council of Europe / European Court of Human Rights]. 2014 - 128 p. URL: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_UKR.pdf. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Golovan v. Ukraine of 5 July 2012, application no. 41716/06. URL: https://precedent.in.ua/2016/02/25/golovan-protyv-ukrayny/. [ukr.]

ECtHR judgment in the case of Vladimir Polishchuk and Svetlana Polishchuk v. Ukraine of September 30, 2010, application No. 12451/04. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_822 [ukr.]

ECtHR judgment in Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria of 16 October 2007, application no 74336/01. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-117700. [russ.]

ECHR judgment in Belozorov v. Russia and Ukraine of 15 October 2015, application no. 43611/02. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-171895. [russ.]

ECtHR judgment in the case of Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria of 15 October 2013, application no. 34529/10. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-126982. [russ.]

ECtHR judgment in Buck v. Germany, April 28, 2005, application No. 41604/98. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-68920. [engl.]

ECHR judgment in Gerashchenko v. Ukraine, 7 November 2013, application no. 20602/05. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-172389.

ECtHR judgment in Aleksanyan v. Russia, 22 December 2008, application no. 46468/06. [URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-90390.

ECtHR judgment in Ratushna v. Ukraine, December 2, 2010, application No. 17318/06. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_821.

ECtHR judgment in Ernst and Others v. Belgium (Ernst and Others v. Belgium) of 15 July 2003, application no. 33400/96. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-65779. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Keegan v. The United Kingdom of 18 July 2006, application no. 28867/03. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-76453. [engl.]