CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 avril 2021

.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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFF7FC10F { width:95.94%; border-collapse:collapse } .s9A88B84C { width:7.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s9FAFF773 { width:29.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC8A62A89 { width:20.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s935B00AC { width:20.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAA0C2691 { width:7.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s637B56F5 { width:29.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBD2C5439 { width:20.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s436C7260 { width:20.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 3 May 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 81440/17 Rūdolfs BRĒMANIS and Others against Latvia lodged on 27 November 2017 Communicated on 12 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first applicant was a diplomat at the Latvian Embassy of the United Arab Emirates. The second and third applicants are his parents. The fourth and fifth applicants are his sister and her partner. On 5 July 2007 the homes of the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants were searched in connection with criminal proceedings against the first applicant. The first applicant is currently on trial on various charges (fraud, misappropriation of funds and abuse of office). The case is pending before the first-instance court. Searches were authorised on the basis of two search warrants of 4   July 2017 issued by an investigating judge of the Riga City Vidzeme District Court. On 5   July 2017 police officers of the security police arrived at those premises and seized various personal items including several computers, hard drives, flash drives, memory cards, mobile phones, a baby monitor and a gun. They also conducted a search of the first applicant and seized his mobile phone, allegedly, without any legal basis. The applicants lodged complaints about those search warrants and actions taken by the police officers during the search. On 21 July 2017 an appellate court judge upheld the lawfulness of both search warrants. The applicants applied to have their personal items returned. By decisions of 28   November 2017 and 16   January 2018 their requests were refused. On 1   March 2018 procedural shortcomings in the criminal investigation were established. On   6 and 28   March 2018 some, but not all, items were returned. By a final decision of 6   April 2018 the applicants’ further requests were refused. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their 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 5   July 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 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? APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Birth year Nationality Place of residence 1 R. BRĒMANIS 1983 Latvian Riga 2 E. BRĒMANIS 1935 Latvian Riga 3 S. SKULME 1950 Latvian Riga 4 I. BRĒMANE 1981 Latvian Riga 5 T. VILSONS 1979 Latvian Riga