The case concerns a search conducted at a lawyer’s home in Ukraine in 2013 in connection with criminal proceedings against his client. The Court found violations of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.The key aspects of the decision are:
- The search warrant was overly broad and lacked sufficient reasoning to justify the belief that relevant evidence would be found at the lawyer’s premises
- The seizure and examination of electronic devices potentially containing privileged material was done without adequate safeguards
- The devices were kept by authorities for an unjustifiably long period
- There was no effective remedy available to challenge the lawfulness of the search warrant
The main provisions of the decision include:
- The Court emphasized that searches of lawyers’ premises require especially strict scrutiny to protect legal privilege
- While acknowledging improvements in Ukrainian legislation since previous cases, the Court found serious deficiencies remained in protecting legal professional privilege during searches
- The Court awarded €6,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €3,450 for legal costs to the first applicant
- The complaints by other family members living in the same apartment were dismissed as manifestly ill-founded
The decision highlights the need for specific safeguards when searching lawyers’ premises, particularly regarding electronic data that may contain privileged information. It also emphasizes the importance of having effective remedies to challenge search warrants affecting lawyers.
