Communicated on 20 September 2018
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 22536/11
Teodora Ivanova ILIEVA
against Bulgaria
lodged on 1 April 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Teodora Ivanova Ilieva, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Veliko Tarnovo. She is represented before the Court by Mr Y. Yordanov, a lawyer practising in Veliko Tarnovo.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
At the relevant time the applicant and her partner were owning or managing several companies. They lived together in a flat in Veliko Tarnovo.
At about 10 a.m. on 19 October 2010, while the applicant’s partner was away, police officers arrived at the flat, explaining that they were to search the place. They did not present a search warrant and invited the applicant to hand in certain objects, documents and computer files, but their request was allegedly unclear and she could not understand it properly. Nor could she understand who and on what ground was being investigated.
The search of the applicant’s flat continued all day and was completed at about 6 p.m. After that, until about 9 p.m., the police officers searched the premises of a company managed by the applicant and her partner, seizing at the two places numerous items. They drew up records of their actions. The applicant was given copies of these records, understanding from them that the searches had not been carried out upon a prior authorisation by a judge.
It became clear subsequently that the applicant, her partner and other persons were being investigated by the prosecution authorities for tax evasion, committed through their companies.
On 12 November 2010 the applicant was informed by the Dobrich Regional Court that the two records of search and seizure of 19 October 2010 had been approved by a judge of that court on 20 October 2010. The copies sent to her show that this was certified by the judge’s signature in the top right corner of the records’ first pages, accompanied by mention of the date and time and a stamp.
The applicant has not submitted information on the course of the criminal proceedings against her and her partner, or as to whether the items seized on 19 October 2010 were returned to them.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice have been summarised in Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria (no. 34529/10, §§ 59-61, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of the search of her flat and the premises of the company managed by her, and of the seizure of numerous items, arguing that these actions were in breach of domestic law, since the circumstances were not such as to justify search and seizure without a prior judicial authorisation.
The applicant complains furthermore, under Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, that she had no effective remedies to challenge the lawfulness of the search and seizure or to obtain compensation.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the search and seizure operations of 19 October 2010 breach the applicant’s right to respect for her private life and her home, guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
The parties are requested to provide information on any developments in the case after the lodging of the application, in particular on the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and the period of retention of the items seized on 19 October 2010.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy