5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Stavropol Region. 6.  On 22 March 2006, following an application by a police chief and without the applicant’s knowledge, a judge of the Georgievsk Town Court of Stavropol Region issued a decision authorising the taking of “operational-search measures”, which read in its entirety as follows:
“[The court], having examined a decision by the chief of the Georgievsk district police station on the taking of operational-search measures,
FOUND AS FOLLOWS:
It follows from the decision and a memorandum that ... Samvel Avanesyan, residing at ... probably has in his household certain objects and items prohibited from free circulation and [which have also been] criminally acquired.
With a view to finding and seizing them, it is necessary to take operational-search measures. On the basis of Article 25 of the Constitution and section 6(8) of the Operational-Search Activities Act, the court
HOLDS:
That the carrying-out of operational-search activities, that is, an inspection of the premises, buildings, constructions, vehicles and plots of land belonging to Samvel Avanesyan, residing at [the address], is authorised.” 7.  On the same day two officers from the Georgievsk police station came to the applicant’s house at the Budennova Street and “inspected” (обследовали) the living quarters. 8.  The applicant was away from home on that day. The police showed the authorisation to the applicant’s father. He had a heart attack and died before the ambulance arrived. 9.  The “inspection record” (акт о результатах обследования) indicated that nothing had been found or seized. 10.  On 29 March 2006 the applicant complained to the Georgievsk district prosecutor’s office, claiming that the police officers had carried out an unlawful search. On 10 April 2006 (or 8 May 2006, according to the Government) an investigator from the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings, finding that the officers had acted lawfully and that the death of the applicant’s father had been a coincidence. According to the applicant, the existence of the judicial authorisation of 22 March 2006 was for the first time revealed in the investigator’s reply. 11.  The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to lodge a supervisory-review application against the judicial authorisation of 22 March 2006. He submitted that, contrary to the requirements of the Operational-Search Activities Act, the decision had not mentioned specific grounds for carrying out the “inspection” of his home or spelled out the information on which the suspicion had been founded. He had had no criminal record, no criminal charge had been levelled against him, and he had not been heard as a victim or witness. Furthermore, the scope of the decision had been too vague and imprecise; it had not mentioned what specific items were to be uncovered. The applicant relied on Article 8 of the Convention and the inviolability of his home under the Constitution. 12.  On 20 June and 20 October 2006 two judges of the Stavropol Regional Court returned the supervisory-review applications to the applicant. Their covering letters stated that judicial decisions issued in the framework of the Operational-Search Activities Act were not amenable to supervisory review. 13.  The applicant also complained to the Constitutional Court, seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of section 5 of the Operational-Search Activities Act. On 18 September 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected his complaint, informing him as follows:
“In its Decision no. 86-O dated 14 July 1998 concerning the compatibility of certain provisions of the Operational-Search Activities Act with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court held that proceedings for judicial examination of the issue of whether an operational-search measure restricting the constitutional rights of an individual should be authorised, are not a trial hearing, not even a preliminary hearing: these proceedings are conducted ex parte. The individual concerned is not yet a party to the proceedings and need not be aware of the judicial authorisation. The proceedings are not transparent, public or adversarial; were it otherwise, the taking of covert operational-search measures would become impossible and operational-search activities pointless.
Nevertheless, the absence of the individual concerned from the court session in which the authorisation of operational-search measures restricting the constitutional rights and freedoms is being decided upon does not dispense the court from the obligation to undertake a comprehensive examination of the grounds and conditions for such a measure. The judicial decision must be reasoned and it must refer to specific facts that confirm the indications of a serious or particularly serious crime or act that is being planned or executed or that has been committed.
It follows from section 5 of the Operational-Search Activities Act that an individual who becomes aware that operational-search activities are being carried out against him on the basis of a judicial authorisation and who considers that his rights and lawful interests have been injured thereby may apply to a court for the protection of his rights in accordance with the established jurisdictional and procedural requirements.
These findings by the Constitutional Court have been applicable to date.
However, the Constitutional Court is not competent to verify the way in which the law-enforcement authorities interpreted and applied a specific legal act.”