CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 octobre 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 } Published on 3 November 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 47320/18 BRD - GROUPE SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE S.A. against Romania lodged on 27 September 2018 communicated on 14 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawful searches and seizure of documents conducted at several offices of the applicant company in March   2018, on the basis of warrants issued by a judge in the context of a criminal investigation against several of its employees for, among other crimes, cyber fraud and unlawful financial operations. The criminal investigation, started in 2016, is currently pending before a prosecutor of the Department for the investigation of organised crime and terrorism. The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that its right of access to court had been breached due to the alleged impossibility to challenge the search warrants before a court, especially having in mind the stage of the proceedings as the case is pending before the prosecutor and not the courts. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention the applicant company complained that its rights to home and correspondence had been breached by the searches that have been unlawful and disproportionate, conducted in the absence of appropriate safeguards against abuse. The search warrants have been too broad and had not included any reasoning. That had granted unlimited powers to the authorities who had accessed computers and electronic correspondence without being specifically authorised as required by law, and had also taken from its premises an excessively high number of documents that were not necessary for the investigation and were covered by banking secrecy. The applicant company alleged also a lack of an adequate ex post facto review of the above interference with its rights to home and correspondence because any complaints in connection with the searches and seizures can only be put forward at an uncertain later stage of the proceedings, in the context of an appeal against the judgment issued within the criminal proceedings - which are still pending with the prosecutor’s office without any judgment being issued. The applicant company also complained that the authorities had seized and withhold original documents necessary for its activity of recovery of loans and had therefore breached its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the searches and seizures of documents carried out on the applicant company’s commercial premises, constitute an interference with its right to respect for its home and correspondence, 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 applicant company have access to an effective review of the proportionality and necessity of the interference so as to ensure effective protection of its right to home and correspondence (see BRD – Groupe Société Générale S.A. v. Romania , no. 38798/13, §§ 147 and   148, 18   March 2025)?   3.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, as regards its complaint in respect of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was there a possibility under domestic law to request for the return of the seized documents in the specific stage of the domestic proceedings and in the circumstances of the present case (see BRD – Groupe Société Générale S.A. , cited above, § 153)?   4.     Assuming that no effective domestic remedy was available, has the seizure of documents belonging to the applicant company deprived it of its possessions in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference strike the fair balance between the protection of the applicant company’s right to property and the requirements of the general interest?   The parties are invited to support their arguments in respect of the above questions with examples of relevant case-law of the domestic courts, if any.