CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 4 August 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 7443/24 Vojtech KAVEČANSKÝ against Slovakia lodged on 4 March 2024 communicated on 17 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the search of the notary office belonging to the applicant and seizure of several original documents likely containing data subject to notary-client privilege, carried out on 28 June 2022, on the basis of a search warrant issued by an investigator and approved by a district prosecutor. The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court, which was the only judicial instance involved in the case, alleging, inter alia , violations of Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention. On 31 October 2023 the Constitutional Court (III. ÚS 526/2023) dismissed the constitutional complaint as manifestly ill-founded. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the search and seizure were illegal, not pursuing a legitimate aim and were unnecessary. He further complains that the search warrant was not sufficiently reasoned and that prosecuting authorities did not provide safeguards against interference with professional secrecy. Relying on Article   13 of the Convention, the applicant also complains that he was not provided with a thorough judicial review to examine the legitimacy of the interference with his rights.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the search in the applicant’s notary office and the seizure of the several documents constitute an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, home and correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, 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 Kavečanský v. Slovakia , no.   49617/22, 29   April 2025; Brazzi v. Italy , no.   57278/11, 27 September 2018; DELTA PEKÁRNY a.s. v. the Czech Republic , no. 97/11, 2 October 2014; and Gutsanovi v.   Bulgaria , no.   34529/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts)?