CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s223139AF { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC03030BA { margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sAB406838 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt; color:#444444 } .sF43EBB0E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sB706BD6C { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s9167BAAD { font-family:Arial; color:#0d0d0d } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s1C035772 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:24.1pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s243D54FB { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.1pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s38A1A3E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .sDE1AC5D1 { width:3.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3FA6240E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s6F295A2 { width:1.1pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2CDE95FB { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:line-through } .sF4DD38B3 { width:1.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s506C8085 { width:1.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAEC88898 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:68.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.7pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C5C962F { width:4.25pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7483BB9D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:68.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.7pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA32501C8 { width:4.4pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE55A2357 { width:5.07pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718C05D3 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:73.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3E39F0D2 { width:24.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA0993303 { width:139.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION CASE OF BRD – GROUPE SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE S.A. v.   ROMANIA (Application no. 38798/13)   JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Home • Correspondence • Unannounced inspection of applicant company’s premises by competition authority without prior judicial authorisation • Adequate procedural safeguards against abuse • Relevant and sufficient reasons • Adequate ex post facto judicial review concerning impugned measure’s necessity and proportionality in general administrative proceedings • Proportionate interference given the authorities’ margin of appreciation Art 8 • Home • Correspondence • Seizure of two computers from applicant company’s premises and subsequent electronic search during criminal investigation against its employees based on prosecutorial decision not subject to an effective judicial review • No meaningful examination of impugned measures’ proportionality • Criminal investigation pending for several years • Disproportionate interference   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 18 March 2025   FINAL   18/06/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of BRD – Groupe Société Générale S.A. v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Lado Chanturia, President ,   Jolien Schukking,   Faris Vehabović,   Tim Eicke,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   38798/13) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Romanian company, BRD   – Groupe Société Générale S.A. (“the applicant company”), on 11   June 2013; the decision to give notice of the application to the Romanian Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 5 October 2021, 18 October 2022, 26   November 2024 and 25 February 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that last-mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns, firstly, the alleged unlawfulness of an unannounced inspection conducted on the premises of the applicant company by the Competition Council. Secondly, it concerns the alleged unlawfulness of searches conducted on the premises of the applicant company by the investigative authorities in the context of criminal investigations in respect of several of its employees, as well as the seizure of computers and documents, including information stored electronically belonging to the applicant company. According to the latter, the inspection, the searches and the seizures were carried out in the absence of adequate procedural guarantees and in breach of Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant company is a bank founded in 1990 with its headquarters in Bucharest. It was represented by Mr D.S. Bogdan, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, most recently, Ms   S.M. Teodoroiu, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Investigation by the Competition Council Background 5 .     On 29 October 2008, following reports in the media of statements by officials of the National Bank concerning the establishment of a secret agreement between commercial banks in order to raise the interest rate for inter ‑ bank loans, an internal report was prepared by five inspectors of the Competition Council (“the Council”). The report mentioned that it appeared from a survey of the retail banking market carried out by the Council that there was a constant exchange of information between certain banks. The inspectors considered that the Council was competent to investigate the reported situation on the basis of Article   2   §   4   (b) of Law no.   21/1996 on competition (“the Competition Act” – see paragraph 47 below), which excluded the money market from the scope of the Competition Act only where it was subject to special legal provisions, and that was not the case in the case at hand. In view of the above elements, and considering that the reported practices affected the inter-bank loan market, the report proposed opening an investigation into possible breaches of Article 5 § 1 of the Competition Act (see paragraph 47 below) and Article 81 § 1 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (“TEC”) by commercial companies or associations of commercial companies on the banking market. No specific banks were named in the report. The inspection of 30 October 2008 6 .     On 29 October 2008 the report was discussed in the plenary of the Council, which voted in favour of opening an investigation. That same day, the president of the Council by issuing Order no. 420 (“the investigation order”), opened an investigation into alleged breaches of internal market regulations contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Competition Act (see paragraph   47 below) and Article 81 § 1 of the TEC, by commercial companies or associations of commercial companies on the banking market. The internal report of 29 October 2008 (see paragraph   5 above) was referred to as the starting-point for the investigation. The investigation was to be carried out in compliance with the powers provided for by Articles 35 to 39 of the Competition Act (see paragraph 47 below). 7 .     In the above context, by Order no. 424 of 30 October 2008 (“the inspection order”), the president of the Council ordered an unannounced inspection at the applicant company’s premises on the basis of Order no.   420 and pursuant to Article   26 (b) and Article 27 § 4 taken together with Article   36 of the Competition Act (see paragraph 47 below). The inspection was to be carried out between 30 and 31 October 2008 at the applicant company’s headquarters and at any other premises where it carried out its activities by four inspectors whose names were listed in the inspection order. 8 .     On 30 October 2008, according to the inspection report drafted on that date, the four inspectors arrived at the applicant company’s headquarters at 10.15   a.m. They were met by a representative of the applicant company, who was given copies of the two above-mentioned orders. After waiting for the arrival of the head of the applicant company’s legal department, the actual inspection started at 1 p.m. and lasted until 9.30 p.m. The head of the applicant company’s legal department assigned teams of two representatives of the applicant company – one from the legal department and one IT officer – to accompany the inspectors. They entered several offices belonging to the general manager and the deputy general managers in order to inspect the computers and the files. A total of thirty-two emails were printed from the offices of the general manager and the deputy general managers and copies of those emails were taken by the inspectors. The details of the emails copied by the inspectors were listed in the report and copies of those emails were also given to the representatives of the applicant company. The report also included lists of all the email messages accessed on various electronic storage devices by the inspectors with their location, sender, subject and date, and a description of the documents examined on paper. The report lastly mentioned that possible reasons justifying the need for the documents taken to remain confidential were to be submitted to the Council within five days from the date of the report. The report was signed without objections on behalf of the applicant company by the deputy general secretary and the head of the legal department. A copy of the report was given to the latter. 9 .     On 4 November 2008 the applicant company lodged with the Council a request for the emails taken by the inspectors to remain confidential (see paragraph   50 in fine below). It explained that the documents in question contained names of clients, aspects of its commercial strategy and data concerning its cash flow. The request was allowed by the Council. The applicant company’s appeals Before the Council 10 .     On 10 December 2008 the Council rejected a complaint lodged by the applicant company asking for the annulment of Orders nos. 420 and 424 (see paragraphs   6 and 7 above), considering that no breach of law had occurred. In its complaint, the applicant company had argued, among other elements, that the suspected breach of the Competition Act was unfounded because the increase of the interest rate for inter-bank loans had had a real economic basis and any agreement on this issue would have caused damage to the banks involved in the long term. Before the Bucharest Court of Appeal 11 .     On 7 January 2009 the applicant company lodged with the Bucharest Court of Appeal a complaint asking for the annulment of Orders nos.   420 and   424 and of all subsequent acts issued on the basis or in the enforcement of those orders. It argued that the orders were vague, and that they did not indicate any of the suspected breaches of the Competition Act, the reasons for the unannounced inspection, the documents and information that was to be verified, the period of time concerned by the inspection or the extent of the inspectors’ powers. This failure and the absence of prior judicial authorisation gave the inspectors unlimited powers and was in breach of Article 36 § 2 of the Competition Act. Relying on the judgment of 22   October 2002 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Roquette Frères (C-94/00, EU:C:2002:603), it argued that the investigation initiated by the Council and the inspection had also lacked proportionality, for the same reasons connected to the alleged vague wording of the two orders. The applicant company also complained that the competition inspectors had accessed its information technology system and electronic correspondence despite being warned that they also contained personal information that should have been accessible only with a judicial warrant. Moreover, the inspectors had accessed information that was not relevant to the investigation and which was covered by banking secrecy, and had taken copies of emails that contained information that was not relevant to the investigation and personal information. It concluded that all these shortcomings were in breach of the guarantees in Article 8 of the Convention as regards the right to home and correspondence as set out in Copland v. the United Kingdom (no.   62617/00, ECHR 2007 ‑ I). 12 .     Before the Court of Appeal the Council submitted copies of the entire investigation file, including the internal report of 29 October 2008 mentioned in Order no. 420 (see paragraph 5 above). They argued that sufficient information about the scope and extent of the inspection had been given verbally to the representatives of the applicant company at the start of the inspection. 13 .     The proceedings before the Court of Appeal were suspended pending the examination by the Constitutional Court of a complaint of unconstitutionality, lodged by the applicant company in connection with the provisions of Articles 36 to 38 of the Competition Act (see paragraph   47 below). On 2 January 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant company’s complaint, holding that the premises of companies were not automatically subjected to the same rules as the home of a private person. According to the Constitutional Court, the provisions of the Competition Act allowing inspections on the premises of commercial companies without prior judicial authorisation were in compliance with the Constitution. 14 .     Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the proceedings resumed before the Court of Appeal. At the hearing of 7   September 2010 the applicant company requested the court to send a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in order to clarify the safeguards against arbitrary and abuse in case of unannounced inspections by competition inspectors. The court rejected the request considering that the case ‑ law of the CJEU was clear as regards safeguards in connection with inspections and the relevance of those safeguards to the case at hand was to be examined together with the merits. 15 .     On the same date the applicant company lodged an application with the Court of Appeal complaining that copies of the emails taken during the inspection of 30 October 2008, submitted by the Council at positions 6 to 14 in their list of evidence and stored in the case file that was accessible to the public, also included confidential information (such as the names of clients, aspects of its commercial strategy and data concerning its cash flow – see paragraph   9 above) and requested that the documents concerned be returned to the Council so that they could be resubmitted in a format that would allow that information to remain confidential. The file does not contain information as to whether this application received a reply. However, at a subsequent stage of those proceedings, in its appeal on points of law (see paragraph   20 below), the applicant company did not raise any complaints or arguments in respect of this issue. 16 .     In its written conclusions submitted to the Bucharest Court of Appeal, the applicant company complained that the inspection had unreasonably disrupted its activities and the inspectors had abusively opened, read and taken confidential documents not related to the investigation. In addition, the documents submitted by the Council during the proceedings had not proved the existence of suspicions that could have justified the necessity and proportionality of the inspection. In its supplementary written conclusions, the applicant company again requested the annulment of the two orders as well as of all subsequent acts and submitted that the general wording of Order no.   424 had not allowed its representatives to understand the extent of their obligation to cooperate with the inspectors, who could have seen and taken any type of document, addressed to or sent by any person, referring to any service or product offered by the bank, from any period of time and from any place it may have been found on the premises. 17 .     On 21 December 2010 the Bucharest Court of Appeal rejected the applicant company’s complaint, holding that the two orders in question had been issued in compliance with the procedure prescribed by law and had been adequately reasoned since the first was based on an internal report approved by the plenary of the Council and the second made reference to the first order and to the applicable legal norms. The fact that the two orders did not mention in detail the reasons justifying the investigation was not a reason for their annulment, bearing in mind the unannounced character of the inspection and the necessity to ensure the highest efficiency. The court considered that the alleged overstepping of their legal competencies by the inspectors during the search could not be regarded as a reason to find the order in question unlawful. Such a situation could be seen as a possible breach of that order and hence it could be a reason for the annulment of the decision that would be issued at the end of the investigation, a decision that could be contested separately as provided by Article 47 of the Competition Act (see paragraph   48 below). 18 .     The court explained that Order no. 420 (see paragraph 6 above) had been adopted in accordance with the law which granted the Council competencies in investigations concerning compliance with competition rules. Where the Council did indeed lack competence was in regulating the money market, which had not taken place in the case before it. 19 .     As regards Order no. 424 (see paragraph 7 above), the court held that it fully complied with the law. Firstly, its content could not be exhaustively detailed due to the unannounced character of the inspection. Secondly, as regards the complaint concerning the lack of judicial authorisation, the court considered that the case before it was similar to that in Société Colas Est and Others v. France (no. 37971/97, ECHR 2002 ‑ III). More specifically, it noted that the situations requiring judicial authorisation were listed in Articles   37 and   38 of the Competition Act, and related to inspections of residences, land or means of transport of employees of the companies subject to investigation. However, Order no. 424 had its basis in Article 36 of that Act (see paragraph   47 below) which did not provide for prior judicial authorisation. Nor did the relevant EU Regulation No. 1/2003 (see paragraph 59 below) require such a warrant in the case of the applicant company. Judicial authorisation was required for the actions set out in Article 37 of the Competition Act and could be obtained following a request lodged on the basis of Article 38 of the Act. Only such a request had to respect the provisions of the applicable EU regulations and the case-law of the CJEU. In any event, such a request was an element which came after the inspection order and could not affect the lawfulness of the order. The court further considered that the inspection had been just one step in the investigation and the applicant company’s arguments concerning its unlawfulness and, especially, the lack of judicial authorisation were to be raised in a complaint against the decision finalising the investigation. Before the High Court of Cassation and Justice 20 .     The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against that judgment with the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the High Court”) reiterating its previous arguments (see paragraphs 11 and 16 above). It also submitted that the lower court had incorrectly interpreted the applicable law and the evidence and had not replied to the arguments raised in connection with the absence of suspicions that could have justified the necessity and proportionality of the inspection or to all the arguments raised in respect of the vague wording of the inspection order, hence depriving the applicant company of an effective remedy. Therefore, not only had the inspection lacked prior judicial authorisation, it had also lacked an effective ex   post   facto judicial review. 21.     On 11 April 2013 the High Court rejected the appeal on points of law with final effect. The court first clarified that it would examine only the arguments put forward as regards Order no. 424 since it considered that the applicant company had withdrawn its complaints regarding Order no. 420 and the unlawful opening of the investigation. 22 .     The court further considered that the lower court had adequately replied to all the arguments raised before it and correctly applied the relevant legal provisions. Nevertheless, it went on to review the examination carried out by the lower court and held that Order no. 424 had been adopted in accordance with the law in force at the relevant time: Article 26 (b), Article   27 §   4 and Article 36 of the Competition Act (see paragraph 47 below). The sole condition provided by the above legal provisions for the adoption of such an order was the existence of reasons to believe that documents necessary for the investigation could be found on the premises of the company. The order in the present case had relied on indications ( indicii ) that information or documents necessary for the investigation into possible breaches of the Competition Act – resulting from the internal report of 29   October 2008 (see paragraph   6 above) – might be found on the premises of the applicant company. The law did not require that the Council prove direct participation by the applicant company in the suspected breach of the Competition Act. As regards the applicant company’s argument concerning the vague wording of the order (see paragraphs 11 and 20 above), the court held that the Competition Act did not provide for a specific format for such an order or for specific textual elements in the absence of which such an order could be annulled. The court further explained that the CJEU case-law quoted by the applicant company stated that the content of inspection orders depended on the context of their adoption and the issuing authority was in no way under an obligation to provide all the information it disposed of or the exact legal provisions supposedly breached by the company under investigation. The court also explained that a more detailed description of the suspected breaches of the Competition Act, the applicant company’s role or the exact description of the object of the search could have rendered ineffective the unannounced character of the inspection. 23 .     As regards the complaint that the inspection lacked judicial authorisation, the High Court noted that, at the relevant time, the national legal framework did not require judicial authorisation in cases such as the present one. As regards the complaint that the inspection order lacked a description of the limits of the powers held by the inspectors and their competencies, the court noted that the limits of those powers and competencies and the company’s obligation to cooperate were clearly provided in Article 36 §§ 1 to 4 of the Competition Act (see paragraph   47 below). The court considered that the inspection had been proportionate due to the severity of the suspected acts, the importance of the market involved and the possible consequences of the suspected acts on that market. All those elements justified the Council’s choice of an unannounced inspection as opposed to the instruments set out in Article 35 of the Competition Act. When examining the proportionality of the measure adopted in this case with the aim pursued, the court considered that the applicant company had failed to show and to prove the actual damage sustained by the unannounced inspection on its premises. Therefore, the inspection had complied with both EU law and the provisions of Article 8 of the Convention. 24 .     As regards the applicant company’s complaint of lack of access to a court due to the lower court’s statement that certain arguments concerning the inspection were to be raised at a later stage of the proceedings (see paragraph   17 above), the court considered it as having been resolved since the applicant company had had the opportunity to raise its arguments in its appeal before the High Court and had received reasoned replies in the judgment at hand. Conclusion of the competition investigation 25 .     On 29 May 2013 the applicant company was notified that the president of the Council had decided to close the investigation into it as the evidence collected did not disclose a finding of an infringement of the Competition Act. Criminal proceedings 26 .     In 2012 two separate criminal investigations were started by the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism attached to the General Prosecutor’s Office (DIICOT) involving a large number of suspects, including employees of the applicant company, suspected of large-scale fraud and money laundering. Case no. 102/D/P/2012 27 .     A first set of proceedings, conducted under case no.   102/D/P/2012 (hereinafter referred to also as “the first criminal case”), established that, starting in 2008, employees of the applicant company, most of them holding management positions, together with external people and companies, had created an organised criminal group with the purpose of obtaining bank loans unlawfully and committing fraud, forgery and money laundering. These activities caused several million euros in damages to the applicant company and also to the State budget. 28.     On 16 November 2012 and 8 February 2013, the applicant company lodged criminal complaints against seven of its employees for complicity in fraud in the context of credit operations, joining a request for civil damages allegedly caused by the crimes in question. 29 .     In an interlocutory judgment of 12 December 2012, a judge of the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the prosecutor’s request to conduct search operations at forty-eight locations, including two locations belonging to the applicant company. The judge examined the material in the criminal case file, which had been submitted by the prosecutor, and, sitting in camera, decided that there were sufficient grounds to consider that evidence relevant to the case might be found at the locations in question and that the requirements set out in Articles 100 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP” – see paragraph 68 below) had been fulfilled so that it was possible to fully allow the prosecutor’s request. The judge then issued separate authorisations for the two locations belonging to the applicant company. The authorisations mentioned that they were based on the interlocutory judgment adopted on the same date and included the addresses where the searches were to take place and a time frame of ten days in which to carry them out from 12 to 21   December 2012. 30 .     On 13 December 2012 several police officers carried out searches of the two offices in question in the presence, for each location, of two independent witnesses, several employees and a lawyer representing the interests of the applicant company. According to the search reports, signed without objections by the representatives of the applicant company, a number of documents and electronic storage devices (memory sticks and DVDs) were seized as evidence ( ridicare de obiecte ) as well as fourteen computers (central units) used by the suspects, the branch manager and other employees. All items seized were listed in the reports and placed in sealed bags and boxes. 31 .     Later that same day, the applicant company applied to the General Prosecutor for the immediate return of the computers and of copies of the documents taken from its offices, as they contained information necessary for the continuation of its activities. It also pointed out that a computer belonging to an employee who had not been involved in the investigation could have been wrongfully seized. The DIICOT replied to this application a few days later that formalities for the issuance of authorisations for electronic searches were under way. 32.     On 4 January 2013, following an application by the prosecutor, a judge from the Bucharest Court of Appeal adopted an interlocutory judgment in camera authorising the search of the electronic evidence stored on the computers and the other storage devices seized on 13   December 2012, on the basis of Articles 55 and 56 of Law no. 161/2003 on ensuring transparency in the exercise of public duties and responsibilities and in business, and on preventing and punishing corruption (see paragraph 71 below) and Articles   100 et seq. of the CCP (see paragraph 68 below). On the basis of this judgment, the judge issued a separate authorisation for a period of thirty days for the search of the electronic evidence and to copy it for storage. Subsequently, the judge extended the authorisation, upon the prosecutor’s request, for another thirty days from 6 February to 7 March 2013 in respect of two computers seized from the premises of the applicant company, and then again from 29 March to 27 April 2013. 33.     The bags containing the seized documents and storage devices had been unsealed on 4 January 2013 at the DIICOT, in the presence of an employee of the applicant company and a lawyer representing the interests of the applicant company, who made no objections to the report drafted on that occasion. 34 .     Between 16 and 25 January 2013, in the presence of a representative of the applicant company and its lawyer as well as an independent witness, the data found on the devices seized from the applicant company were stored in electronic format on external hard disks and other storage devices and the seized objects were placed under seal and remained in the authorities’ possession. The reports listing all the computers and other storage devices accessed were signed by all present without objections. Electronic searches of these data took place on several dates between 5 March and 29 April 2013 and the documents and information considered relevant to the investigation were identified and printed out. These consisted of email messages between the employees of the applicant company and various documents attached to the messages in question. Among these documents, there were client evaluation reports and other information concerning the companies under investigation as well as documents concerning an internal audit involving the work of the two employees who were the subject of the criminal investigation. For each electronic search, a report was drafted mentioning the date and time of the search and type and number of documents printed. Copies of those documents were joined to the reports. 35 .     On 25 February 2013 two of the defendants (not employed by the applicant company) asked for the return of computers and mobile phones seized from their homes under Article 109 § 4 of the CCP (see paragraph   68 below). Their request was allowed by the prosecutor on 7 March 2013. 36 .     On 19 March 2013 two digital video-recorders were returned to a representative of the applicant company on the basis of Article 109 § 4 of the CCP, without their hard disks. 37 .     On 3 October 2013 the investigation was concluded and the accused, including the employees of the applicant company, were sent to trial. At the date of the latest information available to the Court (September 2024), the trial was pending before the Bucharest Court of Appeal. Case no. 2352/D/P/2013 38 .     At the end of 2012 the DIICOT started a second investigation (hereinafter referred to also as “the second criminal case”) into several people including employees of the applicant company (other than the ones investigated in case no. 102/D/P/2012) on suspicion of conspiracy to commit fraud and forgery by unlawfully facilitating the approval of non ‑ performing loans. 39 .     On 9 January 2014 the case prosecutor ordered, on the basis of Articles   96 to 99 of the CCP (see paragraph 68 below), the seizure as evidence ( ridicare de obiecte ) of the computers used in their work by the suspect L.A. and the witness B.C.R., who both worked for the applicant company. The prosecutor considered that the two computers might be used in evidence since they might contain information necessary for the investigation. 40 .     In enforcement of the above order, on 13 January 2014 two computers were taken from the offices of the above-mentioned employees on the premises of the applicant company, in the presence of the representative of the applicant company, L.A., B.C.R. and an independent witness. The report drafted on that occasion by the police officers who carried out the operation included the following objections raised by the representative of the applicant company: that he had not been allowed to make a copy of the prosecutor’s order of 9 January 2014; that there had been no prior request for handing over the computers as evidence, therefore the seizure was in fact a search for which judicial authorisation should have been obtained; that one of the computers seized belonged to a commercial manager of the central office and contained confidential information concerning clients as well as commercial strategies which were protected by the banking secrecy and were not necessary for the investigation; that the order of 9 January 2014 provided no reasoning as to the necessity and justification of the measure in so far as it had been ordered more than a year after the opening of the investigation and the applicant company had consistently cooperated with the prosecutor and had provided all the documents and information required. 41 .     On 16 January 2014 a complaint lodged by the applicant company against the prosecutor’s order of 9 January 2014 was registered at the DIICOT. The applicant company reiterated the objections it had raised on the occasion of the seizure as included in the report drafted by the authorities on that occasion (see paragraph 40 above). Furthermore, it also argued that the electronic search had not been provided for by law for the crimes under investigation in the case at hand. More specifically, Law no.   161/2003 (see paragraph   71 below) allowed such searches only in cases of crimes committed through information technology systems. In addition, that Law did not contain any provisions for the prevention of abuse as there were no provisions concerning the actions taken after the seizure, such as the conditions in which the data would be accessed, copied, safeguarded, and by whom, as well as whether it would be destroyed. The applicant company also complained about the lack of judicial authorisation for the seizure which had led to the absence of judicial control over the lawfulness and necessity of the measure contested. It argued that the seizure of information technology devices was part of the electronic search and should therefore have been the subject of judicial authorisation together with that search. It also submitted that the measure had been disproportionate and capable of causing substantial damages because it had led to the accessing and storage of more information than had actually been necessary. Lastly, the applicant company asked to be summoned when the request for judicial authorisation for the search on the computers seized was made and to be allowed to be present during all steps of the search, including for the deletion of the unnecessary information from the devices belonging to the authorities. 42 .     On 20 January 2014 the applicant company’s complaint was examined on the merits and rejected on the basis of Articles 275 to 278 of the CCP (see paragraph 70 below) and Article 64 § 3 of Law no. 304/2004 (see paragraph   72 below) by the hierarchically superior prosecutor within the DIICOT. After reviewing all the steps taken in the investigation and the manner in which the seizure had been carried out, the prosecutor held that the decision of 9 January 2014 (see paragraph 39 above) had been lawful. The seizure had been justified by the nature of the crimes under investigation and the need to examine the data stored on the computers used by one of the suspects and a witness with a view to uncovering evidence revealing the truth in the case. The seizure had been carried out by police officers who had been lawfully assigned to the task by a decision of the prosecutor, in the presence of L.A., B.C.R. and a legal representative of the applicant company who had had, and had used, the opportunity to make objections (see paragraph   40 above). The prosecutor therefore considered that the search had been ordered and carried out in compliance with the relevant legal provisions of Articles   96 to 99 of the CCP (see paragraph 68 below). The prosecutor also argued that further safeguards were in place since, if it proved to be necessary, the electronic search of the data stored on the computers would be conducted only with prior judicial authorisation and in the presence of the people from whom the two computers had been seized. The report drafted following such a search would be included in the investigation file, in compliance with the procedural rules. 43 .     In an interlocutory judgment of 20 January 2014, on the basis of Articles   100 et seq. of the CCP (see paragraph 68 below) and Article   56   §§   1 and   2 of Law no.   161/2003 (see paragraph 71 below), a judge from the Bucharest County Court allowed the prosecutor’s request for the search of the electronic evidence stored on the two computers. According to the prosecutor’s request, the applicant company had been informed about the investigation in November 2012 and had been requested to provide copies of the electronic correspondence conducted between the two employees under investigation. However, the applicant company had informed the prosecutor that the electronic correspondence between the two employees had not been saved on the server and therefore copies of certain exchanges between them could be submitted only by the employees themselves. Therefore, the prosecutor had requested the authorisation to search the two computers in order to find a specific email message sent on a certain date that would clarify the circumstances in which L.A. had requested B.C.R. to examine a credit request. On the basis of the above interlocutory judgment, the judge issued two separate authorisations for the search of each computer, both valid for a period of twenty days starting on 20 January 2014. 44 .     The searches took place on 27 January 2014, separately for each computer, in the presence of the suspect L.A., his lawyer and an independent witness for the first computer and the witness B.C.R. and an independent witness for the second one. According to the search reports signed by all of the parties without objections, the computer used by L.A. was encrypted and could not be accessed, therefore it had been placed in a sealed bag and remained in the authorities’ possession. The computer used by B.C.R. was accessed and an email between her and L.A. had been found to be useful to the case. It was therefore printed out and also stored on a storage device together with the technical data of the hard disk (such as the number, type and capacity of the partitions, the hardware components, and the date and time of the last shutdown). At the end of the search, this computer had also been placed in a sealed bag and remained in the authorities’ possession. 45 .     On 10 March 2014 the two computers were returned to L.A. and B.C.R. upon their request, in the presence of the applicant company’s legal representative. 46 .     At the date of the latest information available to the Court, the investigation was still pending. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE REGARDING COMPETITION AND BANKING 47 .     Law no. 21/1996 on competition (“the Competition Act”), as in force at the relevant time, read as follows in its relevant parts: Article 2 § 4 “The present law does not apply to: ... (b)     the money and securities markets, provided that free competition in those markets is subject to special regulations.” Article 5 § 1 “Express or tacit agreements and decisions between companies or associations of companies, with the purpose or effect to prevent, restrict or distort competition within the Romanian market or parts of the market, are forbidden, ... “ Article 26 “The Competition Council has the following competencies: ... (b)     takes the decisions provided by the present law in cases of a violation of the provisions of Articles 5, 6, 9, 12 and 15, established following investigations carried out by the competition inspectors, in accordance with the provisions of the law and the inspection powers endowed on them by order of the president; a copy of this order shall be handed over by the competition inspectors to the company or the association of companies under investigation; ...” Article 27 § 4 “The Competition Council ... orders the conduct of investigations [and] orders inspections and measures to be taken regarding commercial companies.” Article 34 § 1 “The Competition Council orders investigations ...: (a)     of its own motion; ...” Article 35 “While carrying out investigations and discharging their functions under the present law, competition inspectors may request information or documents needed from companies or associations of companies, by mentioning the legal grounds and scope of the request, and may set deadlines for the submission of such information and documents, under the sanctions provided by the present law.” Article 36 “1.     For the purpose of conducting investigations into breaches of the present law, competition inspectors, except for junior inspectors, are vested with inspection powers and may: (a)     enter premises, land and means of transport under the lawful possession of companies and associations of companies; (b)     examine any documents, records, financial, accounting and trade acts and other records related to the business, irrespective of where they are stored; (c)     take statements from representatives of the company or association of companies on facts or documents considered relevant; (d)     take ( să ridice ) or obtain in any form copies of or extracts from such documents, records, financial, accounting and trade acts or from other records concerning the activities of the company or association of companies; (d)     seal any premises used for the activity of the company or association of companies and any do