CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 janvier 2023

.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 } .s32DC1EF9 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 30 January 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 24779/22 Jurģis LIEPNIEKS against Latvia lodged on 16 May 2022 communicated on 11 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the search at the applicant’s home (which is also the home of his wife) and seizure of electronic devices and documents in connection with criminal proceedings in relation to tax evasion and money laundering. The applicant has no status in those proceedings and was not mentioned in the search warrant. The search of the applicant’s wife’s home was authorised on the basis of a search warrant of 3 August 2021 issued by an investigating judge of the Riga City Vidzeme District Court. On 10 August 2021 five officials of the State Revenue Service and a police officer of the State Police arrived at the applicant’s and his wife’s home and seized multiple documents and portable electronic devices (including USB flash drives, external hard drives, 5 mobile phones and 3 laptops, most of which belonged to the applicant and contained information on his and his family’s private life, as well as information concerning his professional activities). The applicant was present during the search as an adult member of family. The applicant lodged complaints regarding the search warrant and actions taken by the officials during the search. On 23 September 2021 the appellate court judge upheld the lawfulness of the search warrant and found that search and seizure had been proportionate. On 17 November 2021 the prosecutor examined the actions taken by the officials and dismissed the applicant’s request to return his electronic devices and documents. Until the date of lodging the application to this Court, the devices had still not been returned to the applicant. The applicant complains under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 of   the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, home or correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the search and seizure of 10   August 2021 at the applicant’s home?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2? In particular: 2.1.     Was the scope of the search warrant reasonably limited? 2.2.     Was the seizure and retention of the seized items proportionate?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, on account of the search and seizure of 10 August 2021 at the applicant’s home?   4.     If so, was that interference proportionate? In particular, 4.1.     Was the seizure and retention of the items taken from the applicant for more than nine months proportionate? 4.2.     Did the applicant suffer an excessive individual burden in view of the seizure and retention of the seized items?