Communicated on 16 October 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 38798/13 BRD - GROUPE SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE S.A . against Romania lodged on 11 June 2013

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness of a search conducted on the premises of the applicant company (a bank) by the Competition Council on 30 October 2008. The applicant ’ s complaint that the search had breached its right to private life, home and correspondence due to the lack of clarity of the two search orders issued by the president of the Competition Council and their non-compliance with the national law, the EU law and the Convention standards was rejected by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 11 April 2013 as ill-founded.

The application also concerns the alleged unlawful searches conducted at three separate offices of the applicant company (central headquarters, BRD ‑ GSG Grup DorobanÅ£i and BRD-GSG Grup Unirea ) on 13 December 2012 and 13 January 2014 in the context of a criminal investigation for money laundering, fraud and forgery against several of its employees and the seizure of computers and documents including information stored electronically belonging to the applicant, in the absence of adequate procedural guarantees. The applicant also alleges that the subsequent copying and storage of the above information by the authorities breached its rights under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant alleges also a lack of a domestic remedy in this context because their complaints in connection with the searches and seizures can only be put forward in the context of an appeal against the judgment issued within the criminal proceedings - which are still pending without any judgment being issued.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the search of 30 October 2008, the two searches of 13 December 2012 and the search of 13 January 2014, carried out on the applicant ’ s commercial premises, comply with the requirements of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? Did the ensuing seizure of computers and information belonging to the applicant and their subsequent storing by the authorities comply with these requirements?

2. Did the applicant have access to a court to challenge the above searches and seizures, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Compagnie des Gaz de Pétrole Primagaz v. France (no. 29613/08 , 21 December 2010)?

3. Did the applicant have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of its complaints under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

4. Has the seizure of computers and information belonging to the applicant 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 ’ s right to property and the requirements of the general interest?