CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sDD7CB8CD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt }     Communicated on 18 January 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 71205/11 Artur DOROŻ against Poland lodged on 5 November 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Artur Doroż, is a Polish national, who was born in   1983 and lives in Dąbrowa Tarnowska. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 3 April 2011 leaflets containing information about the salary of the Mayor of Dąbrowa Tarnowska and his photograph were distributed. The leaflets were anonymous. The Dąbrowa Tarnowska District Prosecutor opened an investigation into a petty offence of unlawful advertising ( nielegalne ogłoszenie ) proscribed by Article 63 of the Petty Offences Code ( Kodeks wykroczeń ). On 6 April 2011 the Dąbrowa Tarnowska District Prosecutor decided to conduct a search of the premises belonging to the applicant. The decision stated as follows: “In the course of investigation it was established that [the applicant] may be in possession of items which could become evidence in the instant case and in particular of the leaflets with information about the salary of the mayor and his photograph. Given the above, in order to verify the information and to secure the possible pieces of evidence the decision should be as in the operative part.” On 11 April 2011 at 6.20 a.m. the police entered the applicant’s house and conducted a search. No leaflets or other evidence were found. On 18 April 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal against the search order. He argued that the decision had not been sufficiently reasoned and that there had been no justification for a breach of his right to respect for his private life and home. The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Warsaw joined the proceedings as amicus curie . They prepared a pleading in which they raised a doubt as to necessity and proportionality of the measure that had been applied by the authorities. They considered that the decision of the prosecutor had not been sufficiently reasoned. The leaflets which had been under investigation contained a photograph of a public person, the Mayor T.K., and the information about his salary which also had been public. Such action had fallen within the scope of freedom of expression and should not be seen as petty offence. On 20 June 2011 the Dąbrowa Tarnowska District Court upheld the search order and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court established that the search had been legal and justified. The police received information that the applicant had had the leaflets which had been distributed in some towns in the commune. The only way to verify this information was to conduct a search of the applicant’s house. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice Article 63 a (1) of the Petty Offences Code states as follows: “Who places in a public place which is not meant for this purpose an advertisement, poster, announcement, leaflet, inscription or drawing or publicly shows it in other place without the agreement of the appropriate manager is liable to the penalty of limitation of liberty or fine.” COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention about the search in his house that was conducted by the police. The distribution of leaflets with information about the mayor should not warrant such an intrusive breach of his rights to respect for his private life and home.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and home contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Were the procedural guarantees inherent to Article 8 of the Convention respected in the applicant’s proceedings? (b)     Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim and was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised?