CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 juillet 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 154 July 2012 Robathin v. Austria - 30457/06 Judgment 3.7.2012 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Authorisation of search and seizure of all electronic data in law office without sufficient reasons: violation   Facts – In 2006 an investigating judge issued a search warrant in respect of the premises of the applicant, a practising lawyer wanted in connection with a series of theft and fraud related offences. The warrant was not confined to data likely to be related to the alleged offences, but extended to all data in the office. Following the search a review chamber authorised the examination of all the materials after noting that the data had been seized in the context of preliminary investigations and that a lawyer could not rely on his duty of professional secrecy when he himself was the suspect. The applicant was ultimately acquitted of the offences. Law – Article 8: The search and seizure of the electronic data had constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his “correspondence” and had pursued the legitimate aim of crime prevention. The issue whether, as the applicant had submitted, the search warrant was too vague to be in accordance with the law raised questions of proportionality and would be examined in that context. The warrant was issued by an investigating judge in the context of criminal proceedings against the applicant and gave details of the alleged offences, the time of their commission and the alleged damage. The fact that the applicant was ultimately acquitted did not mean that there had not been reasonable grounds for suspicion when it was issued. The warrant was, however, couched in very broad terms, as it authorised in a general and unlimited manner the search and seizure of documents, personal computers and discs, savings books, bank documents and deeds of gift and wills in favour of the applicant. Although the applicant had benefited from a number of procedural safeguards, the review chamber to which he had referred the case had given only brief and rather general reasons when authorising the search of all the electronic data from the applicant’s law office, rather than data relating solely to the relationship between the applicant and the victims of his alleged offences. In view of the specific circumstances prevailing in a law office, particular reasons should have been given to allow such an all-encompassing search. In the absence of such reasons, the seizure and examination of all the data had gone beyond what was necessary to achieve the legitimate aim. Conclusion : violation (five votes to two). Article 41: EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes