6.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Perm. At the material time he was a practising advocate and member of the Perm Regional Bar. 7.  On 10 June 2003 the prosecutor of the Sverdlovskiy District of Perm opened an investigation into theft of property by a Mr S. The theft had been allegedly committed through the use of forged documents. The applicant acted as counsel for Mr S. in the criminal proceedings against him. 8.  The investigator suspected that the documents allegedly forged by Mr S. and a procedural application made by the applicant in the criminal proceedings against Mr S. had been printed on the same device. He commissioned an expert to study those documents. On 21 August 2003 the expert reported that the allegedly forged document and the applicant’s application could have been printed “on the same printing device or on different devices having the same or higher resolution...” The expert specified that it was impossible to make any conclusive findings because “the documents did not contain any singularities that could permit identification of the printing device”. 9.  On 9 February 2004 the investigator asked the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Perm to issue search warrants for the applicant’s home in Gorky Street and his late parents’ flat in Kuybyshev Street. 10.  On 12 February 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Perm granted the investigator’s request and issued two warrants authorising searches at the applicant’s and his late parents’ flats. The entire reasoning of the first warrant concerning the Gorky Street reads as follows:
“The investigator... has submitted an application for a search warrant at the address... which is the place of residence of Mr Kolesnichenko, an advocate with the Perm Regional Bar Association. The investigator argues that certain documents allegedly prepared by Mr G.S. had not in fact been drafted by him but rather fabricated by an electrophotographic process with the probable use of the same device as that used for preparing an application by the advocate Mr Kolesnichenko. This fact is confirmed by an expert report; accordingly, the investigation believes that certain objects of relevance for the investigative acts and the criminal case may be located at that address.
Having studied the materials produced at the hearing, the court considers that the application should be granted because it is reasoned. Since no criminal proceedings have been instituted against the advocate Mr Kolesnichenko and no charges have been levelled against him, the investigator’s application for a search warrant was lodged in accordance with law.
Sufficient information was submitted to the court in support of the application and, in these circumstances, there are grounds for authorising a search in Mr Kolesnichenko’s residence located at [the address on Gorky Street].”
The reasoning of the second warrant concerning Kuybyshev Street was identical, save for the mention that the address in Kuybyshev Street was the registered place of residence of the applicant’s late parents and also the registered address of the applicant’s office. 11.  At 9.40 p.m. on the same day the investigator, accompanied by police officers and two attesting witnesses (ponyatye), came to the applicant’s home in Gorky Street. He asked the applicant to hand over the copying device, which the applicant did. 12.  The investigator and officers then searched the applicant’s flat and seized two computers containing the applicant’s private and professional data, a printer, his personal notebook, certain documents relating to the criminal case against Mr S. and to other cases, three business card holders, and other items. 13.  The search at the applicant’s residence ended at 4 a.m. on 13 February 2004. The investigator and the police then proceeded to search the flat in Kuybyshev Street. 14.  According to the search and seizure report of 12 February 2004, the purpose of the search was to find and seize “copying devices (printers, copiers) [and] documents relevant to the criminal case”. 15.  On 16 February 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Sverdlovskiy District Court. He submitted that the investigator had unlawfully seized belongings of his which were not referred to in the search warrants of 12 February 2004. As a consequence he had been unable to carry on his professional activities and his clients’ right to defence had also been impaired. 16.  On 3 March 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Perm dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding as follows:
“The judicial decision of 12 February 2004 authorised a search of the flat in Gorky Street. It follows from the [investigator’s] application for a search warrant and the judicial decision that the search was necessary because there were sufficient reasons to believe that certain objects relevant to the criminal case could be found at the advocate Mr Kolesnichenko’s home. The judicial decision did not contain any concrete list of objects or documents. Thus, the claimant’s argument that the investigator seized objects and documents which had not been listed in the judicial decision, is unsubstantiated.” 17.  It appears that on 26 March, 1, 14 and 27 April 2004 certain seized objects and documents were returned to the applicant. 18.  On 27 April 2004 the Perm Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision on appeal. It noted that on 12 February 2004 the District Court authorised search and seizure of unspecified objects and documents and for that reason the investigator had the discretion to determine which objects and documents were relevant to the criminal case. The objects and documents which had been found to be irrelevant had been returned to the applicant.