JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES BRATZA, CASADEVALL AND MIJOVIĆ

While in full agreement that the first applicant ’ s rights under Article 8 were violated in the present case, we take a different view as regards the second applicant .

Although the first applicant was the owner and general manager of the applicant company and although the company had its seat at the first applicant ’ s law office, he was not the counsel or legal adviser of the company. It appears that the first applicant acted as legal adviser of certain of the companies owned by the second applicant. However, it has not been claimed that the search and seizure carried out in the first applicant ’ s law office involved electronic data relating to any of the subsidiary companies of which he was the legal adviser. In these circumstances, we are not satisfied that the applicant company may be said to have been affected by the absence of procedural safeguards designed to protect the lawyer-client relationship which has been found by the Court to give rise to a finding of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.