| Applicant name | N.B. |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | LATVIA |
| Application no. | 67101/17 |
| Date | 24/10/2024 |
| Judges | Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, María Elósegui, Artūrs Kučs |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | Not necessary |
| Type of privacy | Locational privacy |
| Keywords | Disproportionate |
| Facts of the case | The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the seizure and retention of her computer. |
| Analysis | As to the scope of the search warrant, which the applicant considered to be overly broad, the Court notes that the warrant was indeed open-ended as to the kinds of items to be seized. However, the requirement that any items seized had to relate to the companies involved in the suspicious financial transactions and had to be of evidential value in the criminal proceedings sufficiently limited the scope of the search warrant. It is true that the wording referred to items “belonging” to the companies specified and did not explicitly refer to computers as items to be seized. Nevertheless, the Court considers that it is clear from the search warrant, when viewed as a whole, that its purpose was to find and seize items which could provide information about the suspicious financial transactions in question and the companies involved. A computer is an electronic device capable of storing electronic documents. Given the applicant’s connection to the client companies, the data stored on her computer could have been relevant to the investigation. Having regard to the fact that the search warrant specifically referred to electronic storage devices, the Court finds that the applicant’s computer was covered by the search warrant. As to the retention of the applicant’s computer, the Court agrees that it might not always be practicable to perform an inspection and an examination of a computer during a search and thus it may be necessary to seize it. However, the Government only put forward general statements regarding possible difficulties which might be encountered when inspecting or examining a computer and did not explain how those statements applied to the present case or why it was necessary to retain the applicant’s computer for more than fifteen months. In addition, the Government did not provide an explanation as to why there were some periods when the investigating authorities were inactive during this time. In this connection, the Court notes, in particular, that after forensic experts had informed the investigator that decrypting the data stored on the computer would be impracticable, the investigator still went on to hold the computer for more than four months before ordering an official forensic examination, only for an expert to reaffirm that the data could not be accessed within a reasonable time. In these circumstances, the Court finds no justification for the retention of the applicant’s computer for a total duration of more than fifteen months and considers that measure to have been disproportionate. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | hat the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts: (i) EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 28.04 (twenty-eight euros and four cents), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; |
| Documents | Judgment |