CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 juillet 2024

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 22 July 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38209/23 UAB IKI LIETUVA against Lithuania lodged on 13 October 2023 communicated on 4 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant company’s complaints about lack of access to court and breach of privacy. On 13   April 2023 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court granted a request by the Competition Council, lodged in administrative case no.   I2 ‑ 8269-596/2023, to allow it to conduct a search at the applicant company’s headquarters in Vilnius. The court also ruled that the administrative case materials were not publicly accessible, and only parties to those proceedings could accede to those materials. The search was performed on 18   April 2023. During that search, the Competition Council’s officials non-selectively copied and seized information from the applicant company’s computers, which included electronic documents, emails, and its employees’ messages on the Microsoft Teams programme. The applicant company then sought to start administrative court proceedings. It noted that it had had no procedural status in the administrative case no.   I2-8269-596/2023, in connection with which the search had been authorised. The applicant company underlined that it had had no knowledge of that case or of the grounds on which the search was authorised; no grounds were disclosed in the ruling of 13   April 2023 either. The applicant company considered that the search had been conducted and the materials had been gathered unlawfully, in breach of Article   8 of the Convention. It also considered that it had a right to contest the Competition Council’s actions before a court, that right stemming from Article 30 of the Constitution which guarantees the right of access to court, a right which could not be restricted. It further argued that, even if a final decision on the merits by the Competition Council had not yet been delivered, there should remain a possibility for the applicant company to challenge the Competition Council’s officials’ procedural actions. The applicant company referred to the Court’s judgment in UAB Kesko Senukai Lithuania v. Lithuania , no.   19162/19, 4   April 2023. By a non-appealable ruling of 13   June 2023 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court held that the applicant company had not been a party to the administrative case no.   I2-8269-596/2023, and therefore could not have access to the materials of that case. On 23   June 2023 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court refused to accept the applicant company’s appeal for examination, on the grounds that the ruling of 13   June 2023 was non-appealable and the applicant had had no procedural status in the administrative case. On 20   September 2023 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the ruling of 23   June 2023. In parallel, the applicant company asked the Supreme Administrative Court to reopen the examination of the administrative case no.   I2 ‑ 8269 ‑ 596/2023, and include the applicant in those proceedings as a third party, so that it could challenge in court the Competition Council’s request for a search. By a ruling of 19   July 2023 the Supreme Administrative Court refused to accept the applicant company’s request for examination. The court held that the administrative case no.   I2-8269-596/2023 had come to an end by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court’s ruling of 13   April 2023. The latter ruling was not to be considered as a ruling or decision by which the parties’ dispute had been ultimately resolved, which was one of the conditions for proceedings to be re-opened. Under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention the applicant company complains of the fact that the administrative courts had refused to include it in the proceedings so that it could contest the court ruling of 13   April 2023 and/or the lawfulness of the Competition Council’s actions, by which a large quantity of commercially sensitive information and private information of the applicant company’s employees had been gathered. As a result, in the absence of ex post facto judicial oversight, the applicant company was deprived of a possibility to defend its rights. The applicant company states that while it is rational that the administrative case materials were not accessible to it before the search, the fact that they were also inaccessible after the search amounted to a direct breach of its fundamental right of access to court. Under Article   8 of the Convention the applicant company further complains that a large amount of its commercially sensitive data and its employees’ private information had been gathered and seized during the search. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil or criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case?   If so, did the denial for the applicant company of the right to challenge the judicial decision granting the search and the applicant company’s inability to accede to the administrative case materials amount to a violation of its rights under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Ravon and Others v. France , no.   18497/03, §§ 28, 31 and 33, 21   February 2008, and Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz v. France , no.   29613/08, §   30, 21   December 2010; see also Société Canal Plus and Others v. France , no.   29408/08, §   40, 21   December 2010)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s right to respect for its private life, home or correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, by the search and seizure of a large amount of the company’s commercially sensitive data and its employees’ private information (see UAB Kesko Senukai Lithuania v. Lithuania , no.   19162/19, §§   109 and 110, 4   April 2023, with further references)?   If so, was the interference in conformity with the requirements of Article   8 §   2 of the Convention: was it “in accordance with the law”, did it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims set out in that paragraph and was it “necessary in a democratic society” (ibid, §§   111-127)?