CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 August 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 57748/21 Tomáš KULÁK against Slovakia lodged on 23 November 2021 communicated on 10 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the search and seizure of a computer in a law firm belonging to the applicant, carried out on the basis of the prosecutor’s telephone consent, without a written search warrant. The computer, likely containing data subject to attorney-client privilege, was returned to the applicant fifteen months after its seizure. The applicant lodged a   constitutional complaint alleging, in particular, a violation of Articles 6 and   8 of the Convention and maintaining that the search and seizure of the computer   had been carried unlawfully and had been disproportionate. On 25   May 2021 the Constitutional Court (I.   ÚS 226/2021) dismissed the complaint as manifestly ill-founded. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the search in the law firm belonging to the applicant and seizure of his computer constitute an interference with his right to respect for his private life and his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? 2.     Did the domestic legislation and practice provide effective protection to the applicant against arbitrary interference with his rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see Brazzi v. Italy , no. 57278/11, §§ 41-48, 27   September   2018; DELTA PEKÁRNY a.s. v. the Czech Republic , no. 97/11, §§ 83 and §§   86-88, 2   October 2014; Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria , no. 34529/10, §§ 220-223, ECHR 2013 (extracts)?