Published on 12 May 2025
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 13108/23
Zuzana LEITMANNOVÁ
against Slovakia
lodged on 15 March 2023
communicated on 25 April 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns a search carried out by extensive police presence, including masked police officers, at the applicant’s home in order to find accounting records in electronic form and hard copies of other documents concerning or belonging to a private company, to which the applicant had provided accounting services in the past.
The search was relevant to criminal proceedings brought against an unknown person who had unlawfully obtained a grant from the State in favour of the private company. The search resulted in a seizure of two computers belonging to the applicant, which allegedly contained only her private data, and of all her savings. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint alleging, in particular, a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and maintaining that the search and seizure had been ordered and carried out unlawfully and had been disproportionate. On 26 October 2022 the Constitutional Court (II. ÚS 467/2022) dismissed the complaint, which was the only domestic remedy available, as manifestly ill-founded.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the search of the applicant’s home and the seizure of two computers belonging to her and of all her savings constitute an interference with her right to respect for her private life and her 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? In particular:
(a) was the search of the applicant’s home preceded by a request to the applicant to hand over objects important for the criminal proceedings (Article 89a and Article 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure)?
(b) was the manner in which the search was carried out, with an extensive police presence, including masked police officers, justified and strictly necessary in the circumstances of the present case?
2. Did the domestic legislation and practice provide effective protection to the applicant against an arbitrary interference with her 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; and Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, §§ 220-23, ECHR 2013 (extracts))?