Communicated on 19 September 2019

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 73284/13 Marin Stefanov STEFANOV against Bulgaria lodged on 21 November 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Marin Stefanov Stefanov , is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Burgas . He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva , lawyers practising in Plovdiv.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

At the relevant time the applicant was a barrister and member of the Burgas Bar Association.

On 14 February 2013 the applicant was arrested. He was searched and a number of items were seized from him, in particular a flash memory stick. He was released the next day.

On 19 February 2013 the applicant requested the return of the memory stick, under Article 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, explaining that it contained information about his legal practice which was inviolable under section 33 of the Bar Act, and that it did not contain data related to the investigation against him.

In a decision dated 6 March 2013 a prosecutor from the Sofia City Public Prosecutor ’ s Office refused to return the memory stick. The applicant lodged an appeal, but in the meantime informed once again the prosecutor in a letter dated 25 March 2013 that the stick contained documents related to his legal practice. He requested that the prosecutor “take all legal measures to prevent the seizure, examination, copying and checking of privileged information”.

In a decision of 23 May 2013 the Burgas District Court ordered that the memory stick be returned to the applicant, pointing out in particular that it had already been retained for three months, which was sufficient if the prosecution authorities had wished to have it examined by experts.

In the meantime, charges of fraud, later on replaced with charges of influence peddling, were brought against the applicant. He was alleged to have received money from a client of his in order to obtain the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against the latter by the prosecution authorities.

On 30 March 2015, after the investigation was completed, the evidence collected was disclosed to the defence. At that moment the applicant and his lawyer became aware that all documents – professional and personal – which had been stored on the memory stick had been printed out and included in the case file.

On 12 June 2015 the applicant requested the prosecution authorities to provide him with copies of these and other documents, stating that he needed them to lodge a complaint with the Court. In a decision of 10 July 2015 a prosecutor refused, pointing out that the Code of Criminal Procedure did not entitle the defence to receive such copies.

In 2018 the applicant was convicted for influence peddling and received a suspended sentence. The conviction and sentence became final in May 2019.

The relevant domestic law concerning search and seizure in the context of criminal proceedings has been summarised in Posevini v. Bulgaria (no. 63638/14, §§ 25-31, 19 January 2017).

In addition, Article 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that physical evidence must be retained until the end of the criminal proceedings. It can be released earlier to authorised persons if that does not hinder the establishment of the facts.

Section 33 of the Bar Act provides that a barrister ’ s files and papers are inviolable and cannot be checked or seized.

COMPLAINTS

In his initial application form the applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the retention by the prosecution authorities of his memory stick, containing materials related to his legal practice. On 9 September 2015 he complained in addition that the authorities had accessed these materials, as well as personal documents stored on the memory stick, and had included them in his case file.

The applicant complained also under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 of the lack of effective domestic remedies.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life 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. The parties are requested to indicate the domestic remedy at the applicant ’ s disposal in relation to his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, and whether, in the circumstances of the case, such a remedy could be considered effective?