Published on 28 August 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 49617/22 Vojtech KAVEČANSKÝ against Slovakia lodged on 17 October 2022 communicated on 10 July 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the search and seizure of electronic devices in notary offices belonging to the applicant, carried out without the presence of the applicant, his lawyer or employee. Prior to the searches, written search warrants were not served on the applicant or a person who had authority to act on his behalf. The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court, under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, that the search and seizure of electronic devices likely containing data subject to notary-client privilege had been unlawful. He further complained that the search warrants had not been sufficiently reasoned and had not contained any relevant grounds or safeguards against interference with professional secrecy. On 1 June 2022 the Constitutional Court (IV. ÚS 286/2022) rejected the constitutional complaint, which was the only domestic remedy available, as being premature because the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still ongoing.

The applicant complains under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the search in notary offices belonging to the applicant and seizure of electronic devices constitute an interference with his right to respect of his private life and his home, 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. Did the domestic legislation and practice provide effective protection to the applicant against arbitrary interference with his rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see Brazzi v. Italy , no. 57278/11, §§ 41-48, 27 September 2018; DELTA PEKÁRNY a.s. v. the Czech Republic , no. 97/11, §§ 83 and §§ 86-88, 2 October 2014; Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria , no. 34529/10, §§ 220-223, ECHR 2013 (extracts)?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?