CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 20 October 2020 Published on 9 November 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 58195/16 Kristīne RUTULE against Latvia lodged on 4 October 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the search at the applicant’s home, which premises she also used for providing her services as a lawyer, and seizure of her computer in connection with criminal proceedings in relation to forgery and fraud. The applicant has not been declared a suspect in those proceedings; her status is that of a “person against whom criminal proceedings have been instituted”. The search of the applicant’s home was authorised on the basis of a search warrant of 24   February 2016 issued by an investigating judge of the Riga City Ziemeļu District Court. On 9 March 2016 two police officers arrived at her home and seized her computer. The applicant lodged complaints regarding the search warrant and actions taken by the police officers during the search. On 4   April 2016 the President of the Riga City Ziemeļu District Court upheld the lawfulness of the search warrant. On 5   May 2016 a prosecutor ordered the police to return the applicant a copy of data stored on her computer which was necessary to provide services to her clients and which was not related to the criminal proceedings. On 3   June 2016 the applicant received that data. On 16 November 2016 the applicant’s computer was returned to her. The criminal proceedings have been discontinued on the grounds that no crime has been committed on two occasions in 2017 and 2018, but on 11 July 2019 the criminal investigation was restored for unknown reasons. It is currently pending at the pre-trial stage. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, home or correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the search and seizure of 9   March 2016?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, was the seizure and retention of the applicant’s computer for more than eight months proportionate?   3.     Did the Latvian legal framework for searches and seizures, as applied by the domestic authorities, afford adequate and effective safeguards against abuse?