I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in KUZMINAS v. RUSSIA.


  • Judgment date: 2021-12-21
  • Communication date: 2017-05-17
  • Application number(s): 69810/11
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 8, 8-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home
    Respect for private life)
  • Result: Violation

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.759628
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Denis Gennadyevich Kuzminas, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Kaliningrad.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 3 February 2011 police performed a test-purchase of drugs from the applicant and then urgently searched his flat on the basis of an investigator’s order.
On the same date the investigator informed the court about the search.
On 9 February 2011 the Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad found the search order lawful.
The District Court held, in particular, that the investigator had sufficient reasons to believe that at the applicant’s residence address police would find “drugs, psychotropic and poisonous substances, other objects banned from civil circulation, money and valuables earned by crime, as well as other objects and documents relevant for the investigation”.
The District Court also considered that the search had been performed in the conditions of urgency.
The applicant received a copy of the judgment of 9 February 2011 on 27 June 2011.
He appealed against it complaining, inter alia, about the delayed court approval of the search order and lack of reasons for the urgency of the search.
On 6 September 2011 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment of 9 February 2011.
The Regional Court found the investigator’s search order reasonable, urgent and complying with the rules of procedure.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the unlawful search of his flat and lack of an effective judicial review of the search.