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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Communicated on 9 November 2020 Published on 30 November 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 67101/17 N.B. against Latvia lodged on 7 September 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the search at the applicant’s home, which premises she also used for providing legal and accounting services, including domiciliation and incorporation services to companies, and the seizure of her computer in connection with criminal proceedings against her clients concerning tax evasion. The applicant is a witness in those proceedings. The search of the applicant’s home was authorised on the basis of a search warrant of 12   December 2016 issued by an investigating judge of the Riga City Ziemeļu District Court. On 13 February 2017 police officers of the Finance Police Department of the State Revenue Service 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 10   March 2017 an appellate court judge upheld the lawfulness of the search warrant. On 25 May 2017 a superior prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s request to return her computer. Upon repeated requests by the applicant, on 29 May 2018 the computer was returned to her. There is no information about the current stage of proceedings in relation to the criminal investigation. 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 13   February 2017?   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 seizure and/or retention of the applicant’s computer proportionate?   2.2.     Did the Latvian legal framework for searches and seizures, as applied by the domestic authorities, afford adequate and effective safeguards against abuse?