Published on 15 June 2026
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 249/25
Vojtech KAVEČANSKÝ
against Slovakia
lodged on 27 December 2024
communicated on 26 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the search of the notary office belonging to the applicant and seizure of his computer data, carried out on 12 March 2024, on the basis of two warrants issued by an investigator, approved by a district prosecutor, and subsequently reviewed by the supervising regional prosecutor. The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court, which was the only judicial instance involved in the case, alleging, inter alia, violations of Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention. On 24 September 2024 the Constitutional Court (IV. ÚS 448/2024) dismissed the constitutional complaint as manifestly ill-founded.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the search and seizure were illegal, not pursuing a legitimate aim and were unnecessary. He further complains that the search warrants were not sufficiently reasoned and that prosecuting authorities did not provide safeguards against interference with professional secrecy. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant also complains that he was not provided with a thorough judicial review to examine the legitimacy of the interference with his rights.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the search of the applicant’s notary office and the seizure of his computer data constitute an interference with his right to respect for his private life, home and correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, 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 Kavečanský v. Slovakia, no. 49617/22, 29 April 2025; Brazzi v. Italy, no. 57278/11, 27 September 2018; DELTA PEKÁRNY a.s. v. the Czech Republic, no. 97/11, 2 October 2014; and Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts)?