CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 janvier 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s8934192D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s1DFCAA0B { width:237.62pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s96D82958 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify }   Published on 29 January 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 53499/20 Dimitrios KARAISKOS against Greece lodged on 27 November 2020 communicated on 8 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a psychiatrist. He submits that on 4 September 2018, while he was not a suspect, searches of his home and practice were conducted, and this following the issuance of a very broad search warrant which did not describe the alleged facts which were related to him. His two cars were also searched without a prosecutor’s warrant. The warrant ordered “indicatively” the seizure of money and documents with no regard to the applicant’s status as a doctor; and documents covered by his professional secrecy were also seized. He alleged that the search was conducted in his absence and while only his minor son and another tenant were present. He also argues that copies of the search and seizure reports had not been handed over to him. On 22 January and 1 October 2019 he submitted requests for the seizure to be lifted and the items be returned to him. He further asked to be informed on whether material had been seized which contained sensitive personal data and patients’ medical files, and in the affirmative to return them to the prosecutor. He also requested a copy of the criminal file which, as regards his case, had meanwhile been closed. By decision no. 4986/2019 of the Indictment Division of the Athens Court of First Instance, issued on 24   December 2019, the applicant’s request was dismissed for being unfounded on the ground that since 16 January 2019 the prosecutor had ordered their restitution and the seized items had been returned to him. On 9   March 2020 the same Indictment Division issued decision no. 893/2020, served on him on 27 May 2020, ordering that the seized items be returned by the investigating judge to the applicant. Relying on Article 8 the applicant complains of the unlawfulness and several irregularities of the searches during the preliminary police investigation, the refusal to be provided with copies of the search and seizure reports, the transmission of seized documents which contained sensitive personal and banking data and breach of confidentiality, as well as the incomplete, partial and delayed return of his seized items. In particular, he argues that digital material was unlawfully kept from 16   January 2019 until the day when it was returned to him, and other seized items were unlawfully detained from the same date until today.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, home or correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention as regards the searches, seizures and restitution of seized items? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?