| Applicant name | RUTULE |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | LATVIA |
| Application no. | 24/10/2024 |
| Date | 58195/16 |
| Judges | Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, María Elósegui, Artūrs Kučs |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | No fair balance |
| Type of privacy | Locational privacy |
| Keywords | Search and seizure |
| Facts of the case | Before the Court, the applicant alleged that the search of her apartment, the seizure of her computer and the prolonged denial of access to her data had constituted a violation of her rights under Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | It has not been disputed that the applicant was a lawyer providing legal services, that she used the seized computer in her professional activities, and that the computer contained data concerning her clients and the legal services provided to them. The Government indicated that proper examination of data stored on a computer might take several days. However, they failed to provide a reasonable explanation for why, in this particular case, it had been necessary to deprive the applicant of access to her data for a period of almost three months. It is reasonable to conclude that this deprivation of access to data significantly impeded the applicant’s professional activities. It does not appear that the investigating authorities were prevented from expediting the examination of the computer, creating a mirror copy of the data for further examination and returning the computer to the applicant, or, at the very least, providing her with a copy of the data soon after the seizure. The Court also observes that there were no specific safeguards in domestic law regarding searches of lawyers’ premises and seizure of their documents or data storage devices that would have been applicable to the applicant. The domestic legislation did require prior authorisation for a search and seizure operation from an investigating judge. In the present case, however, the relevant warrant contained no reference to the fact that the applicant, as a lawyer, provided legal services. The domestic authorities were well aware that the applicant provided legal services and was representing, in civil proceedings, third parties who were implicated in the related criminal investigation. Nonetheless, it does not appear that the investigator, the supervising prosecutor, or the judge examining the applicant’s complaint about the search and seizure warrant attached any weight to this fact. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within that time-limit. In the absence of a properly made “claim”, the Court will award just satisfaction of its own motion only in exceptional circumstances |
| Documents | Judgment |