CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 28 September 2020 Published on 19 October 2020   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 25142/19 and 63112/19 Vadim Albertovich DENIYEV against Russia and Andrey Valeryevich ZUYEV against Russia lodged on 28 April 2019 and 28 November 2019 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants in the two cases are lawyers admitted to the Bar. Their applications concern the search of their working places located in a law office. The first application also concerns reasonable suspicion and relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The first application also contains the issue of protracted examination (about three months) of the applicant’s appeal against a court order extending his detention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     As regards the search of the applicants’ working places, was there an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, home and correspondence and, if yes, was it “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants afforded sufficient procedural safeguards against interference with professional secrecy (see Smirnov v. Russia , no. 71362/01, §§ 44 and 48, 7   June 2007; Kolesnichenko v.   Russia , no. 19856/04, §§ 31-35, 9   April   2009; Yuditskaya and Others v.   Russia , no. 5678/06, §§27-31, 12   February 2015; Kruglov and Others v. Russia , nos. 11264/04 and 15   others, §   132, 4   February 2020)?   2.     (Application Deniyev v. Russia , 25142/19) Was the applicant’s detention based on a reasonable suspicion and whether it had relevant and sufficient grounds (see Dirdizov v. Russia , no. 41461/10, §§ 108-110, 27   November 2012)?   3.     (Application Deniyev v. Russia , 25142/19) Was the length of the judicial review of the applicant’s appeal complaint against a court decision extending his detention excessive? (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§   154-158, 22 May 2012)