Published on 8 November 2021

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 63377/19 Dawid ŁUKAWSKI against Poland lodged on 27 November 2019 communicated on 20 October 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the search of the applicant’s flat in the context of criminal investigation against him and the seizure of electronic devices (a laptop computer, a hard drive and a mobile phone) which contained, among other things, his correspondence with his defence lawyer concerning a different set of criminal proceedings. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the actions of the police officers and the investigative authorities complaining that the seizure was disproportionate as the confiscated electronic devices contained correspondence between a lawyer and his client which was subject to particular protection. He pleaded that the investigative authorities’ actions breached his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.

On 20 May 2019 the State Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the actions of the police. On 5 August 2019 the Łódz District Court dismissed the applicant’s lawyer’s appeal against the decision to arrest the applicant and search his flat. In so far as the applicant complained about the seizure of the electronic devices the court held that the applicant failed to indicate which electronic files contained privileged material – i.e. correspondence with the lawyer. The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending.

Before the Court the applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the search of his flat and the seizure of electronic devices containing confidential correspondence with his lawyer amounted to a breach of his right to respect for his private life, home and correspondence.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, home and/or correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of the search and seizure of 13 February 2019 at his home (compare Sallinen and Others v. Finland , no. 50882/99, 27 September 2005 and 60567/10, 2 April 2015 and Saber v. Norway , no. 459/18, 17 December 2020)?

2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?