| Applicant name | MAZOWIECKI |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Poland |
| Application no. | 34734/13 |
| Date | 08/06/2023 |
| Judges | Lətif Hüseynov, président, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Erik Wennerström |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | No legal basis |
| Type of privacy | Locational privacy |
| Keywords | Quality of law/legal procedure |
| Facts of the case | Applicant’s ex wife informed the police that she suspected the applicant of having stolen the keys to her apartment as well as a copy of the notarial deed of donation of the apartment in question. On the same day, the police carried out a search of the applicant’s home in his absence. During the search, the officers seized three sets of keys and several documents, including in particular a copy of a request for cancellation of the applicant’s domicile at the address of A.M.’s apartment formed by the latter. |
| Analysis | The Court recalls that the absence of a search or seizure warrant can be counterbalanced by a posteriori judicial review of the legality and necessity of such measures investigation. In the present case, the Court observes that the district court approved the contested search by a decision but that the decision in question did not have the effect of counterbalancing the absence of a judicial mandate. The Court thus observes that in its decision approving the search, the district court simply cited the relevant provisions of the law and declared that, since its aim was to verify the validity of suspicions of the commission of a criminal offense, the measure in question had been lawful. It notes that it does not appear from the reasons for the said decision that the district court asked itself the question of whether the search was justified by urgency nor that it carried out any analysis of the case under this angle there. However, the Court considers that in the absence of any declaration on this subject from the district court, it has not been demonstrated that it exercised effective control of the legality and necessity of the contested measure. The Court considers that such a check was, however, all the more necessary in the present case given that the seriousness of the offense with which the applicant was accused was low and that the person concerned was not present at the scene of the search. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction in accordance with the procedures provided for in Article 60 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, the Court considers that there is no reason to award him any sum in this respect. |
| Documents | Judgment |