CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 avril 2022

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCA1D70F5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s8D8F5921 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } Published on 25 April 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 49906/14 Serghei POSTICA against the Republic of Moldova and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 6 April 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the searches carried out in the applicants’ home and/or professional premises. A short summary of each application is provided in the appendix. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, as detailed in the table below. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention ( Bostan v.   the   Republic of Moldova , no. 52507/09, 8 December 2020; Mancevschi v.   Moldova , no. 33066/04, 7 October 2008)?     APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. and date of lodging Applicants’ name Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Representative Summary of facts and complaints Complaints 1. 49906/14 lodged on 26/06/2014 Serghei POSTICA born in 1977, living in Băcioi Moldovan   Represented by Sergiu BALABAN On 14 December 2013 the applicant’s home was searched in the presence of his wife and children but the search warrant was served upon the applicant at a later date. The applicant’s appeal was rejected as time ‑ barred on 24   January 2014.     The applicant complains under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention about the disproportionality of the search measure and the impossibility to challenge its lawfulness. 2. 78280/14 lodged on 01/12/2014 FIODOROV & CO S.R.L ., seated in Chișinău, incorporated in Moldova   Represented by Vladimir GROSU On 4 October 2013 was searched the applicant company’s office, located in a commercial centre. The search warrant mentioned the names of other companies which had vending points in the same commercial centre but did not mention the name of the applicant company. On 3 June 2014 the investigating judge conceded that the search should not have taken place in the office of the applicant company but that the unlawfulness of the search had been remedied by the fact that all seized documents had been returned in the meantime. The applicant company complains under Articles   6, 8 and 13 of the Convention about the unlawfulness of the search and the unsatisfactory judicial remedy. 3. 16817/15 lodged on 27/03/2015 Ion DOROGOI born in 1986, living in Chișinău Moldovan   Represented by Andrei LUNGU The applicant is a lawyer. On 7 August 2014 the applicant’s office, home and car were searched. The search warrants did not acknowledge that he was a lawyer. His mobile telephone was seized along with a list of personal documents. On 8 August 2014 a warrant to examine the applicant’s telephone was issued. The applicant’s appeals were finally rejected on 30 September 2014. The applicant’s request to return the seized personal documents was partially granted on 31 January 2015 after the court concluded that those documents were not concerned by the search warrant. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the unlawfulness and disproportionality of the searches carried out in the absence of any safeguards to protect the confidentiality of his professional files.