CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 novembre 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 9 November 2020 Published on 30 November 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31381/17 Maija KRIEVIŅA against Latvia lodged on 24 April 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the search at the applicant’s home and business premises and seizure of various electronic devices in connection with criminal proceedings in relation to illegal financing of political parties. The applicant has not been declared a suspect in those proceedings; her status was that of a “person against whom criminal proceedings have been instituted”. The search of the applicant’s home and business premises was authorised on the basis of two search warrants of 29 September 2016 issued by an investigating judge of the Riga City Vidzeme District Court. On 4   September 2016 officials of the Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption and the Finance Police Department of the State Revenue Service arrived at her home and seized two personal computers and a telephone. On the same date a server was seized at her business premises. The applicant lodged complaints regarding the search warrant and actions taken by the police officers and the investigating authority. On 27   and 28   October 2016 an appellate court judge upheld the lawfulness of the search warrants. On various dates the applicant’s requests to return her electronic devices were dismissed, but she was informed that she could receive a copy of data necessary to run her business. On 25   October 2016 a mirror copy of the data stored on the server and one computer was issued. On 17 November 2016 a prosecutor informed the applicant that he had instructed the investigating authority to examine the seized items in order for them to be returned as soon as possible. On 26 October 2018 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued on the grounds that no crime had been committed. Subsequently, one computer (only its hard drive) was returned to the applicant in 2018 and another computer – in 2020; her telephone was not returned. The applicant complains under Article   8 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, family life, home or correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the search and seizure of 4   September 2016 at the applicant’s home and business premises?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and was it necessary in terms of Article   8   §   2? In particular:   2.1.     Was the scope of the search warrants reasonably limited?   2.2.     Was the seizure and/or retention of the seized items proportionate?   2.3.     Did the Latvian legal framework for searches and seizures, as applied by the domestic authorities, afford adequate and effective safeguards against abuse?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1, on account of the search and seizure of 4   September 2016 at the applicant’s home and business premises?   4.     If so, was that interference proportionate? In particular:   4.1.     Were all the items taken from the applicant returned to her once it was established that they were irrelevant for the pending criminal proceedings?   4.2.     Did the applicant suffer an excessive individual burden in view of the seizure and/or retention of the seized items?