7.  The applicant organisation is a public notary professional association and has its main office in Bucharest.
8.  According to the applicant organisation, on 13 December 2007 approximately thirty police officers dressed in civilian clothes entered its premises. They informed a receptionist that they were clients. The receptionist asked them to leave the premises and to wait outside, but they refused.
9.  Eventually two of the officers disclosed their identity and the fact that they were police officers and proceeded to seize an original sale contract that had been signed by two private parties and had been notarised by D.O.R. One of the private parties in question was suspected by the police of being part of an organised criminal group involved in immovable property fraud.
10.  The police officers also seized a number of documents, including the sale contract and original documents concerning the aforementioned private parties. Moreover, the police officers seized the fees and taxes that had been paid by the private parties for the services rendered by the applicant organisation. Furthermore, the police officers took statements from the applicant organisation’s employees.
11.  According to the report produced and signed by the two police officers on the same date, they seized 8,943 euros (EUR), the amount paid in income tax by the private party selling the immovable property, and EUR 1,000 and 12,215 Romanian Lei (RON – approximately EUR 3,470), representing public notary fees and the applicable tax for the registration of the sale in the immovable property register.
12.  On 23 April 2008 the applicant organisation, legally represented by D.O.R., brought criminal proceedings against the two police officers (see paragraph 9 above) for unlawful home intrusion and abuse of office against private interests. Furthermore, it asked for the report produced by the police officers on the day of the incident to be annulled and for the original documents and for the relevant fees and taxes seized to be returned.
13.  On 27 March 2009 the Bucharest prosecutor’s office noted that the police officers had seized the relevant documents and sums of money without an express order to do so having been issued by the prosecutor charged with the case because the police officers had at the time been carrying out an operational mission aimed at catching suspects red-handed in the commission of an offence. Moreover, according to the available evidence, an official order from the prosecutor would in any case not have been necessary in this regard because the seized documents and sums of money had been turned over to the officers without any objections.
14.  On 11 August 2009 a prosecutor attached to the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal investigation opened against the two police officers on the grounds that no unlawful act had been committed. She held that the police officers had acted within the context of a criminal investigation initiated against an organised criminal group involved in immovable property fraud. A large number of police officers had been mobilised for an operation aimed at catching the suspects red‑handed. The two police officers had entered the premises of the applicant organisation, disclosed their identity and the fact that they were police officers, and proceeded to seize the relevant documents and fees. Consequently, the police officers had acted in their professional capacity in order to fulfil their professional duties and with the aim of investigating cases they had been working on. Their presence on the applicant organisation’s premises had not amounted to the offence of unlawful home intrusion because the premises of the applicant organisation constituted by their nature a public area and the event in question had occurred during working hours. Moreover, the elements of the offence of abuse of office against private interests had not been met. Consequently, no damage had been caused given that the valuables seized by the officers had concerned the commission of offences.
15.  The applicant organisation challenged the prosecutor’s decision before the superior prosecutor attached to the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office.
16.  On 31 August 2009 the superior prosecutor dismissed the applicant organisation’s challenge as ill-founded.
17.  On 21 September 2009 the applicant organisation lodged an appeal against the prosecutor office’s decisions with the Bucharest Court of Appeal. It argued, among other things, that the police officers had entered its premises in breach of Article 27 § 2(b) of the Romanian Constitution (see paragraph 32 below). They had not been seeking to protect other people’s property and in any event they could have done that by taking property preservation measures (that is to say take measures to prevent the re-sale or use of the property – indisponibilizarea bunului). Moreover, the two above-mentioned police officers had entered the premises accompanied by their colleagues and had remained there outside the applicant organisation’s working hours. Also, they had unlawfully seized the public notaries’ professional fees and returned them to the private party who had been the victim of the alleged fraud. Furthermore, they had failed to include in the report produced on the day of the incident the applicant organisation’s objections against (i) the police officers’ presence on its premises, (ii) the seizure of fees and (iii) the questioning of its staff members, who had been bound by rules concerning professional secrecy.
18.  On 2 November 2009 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant organisation’s appeal and upheld the prosecutor office’s decisions. It considered that the two police officers, accompanied by other colleagues, had carried out an operational mission seeking to catch suspects red-handed in the commission of an offence and to gather evidence. In this connection they had surveyed the suspected criminal group and after a sale contract had been signed, they had asked D.O.R. to turn over all the documents and sums of money connected to the sale. D.O.R. had relinquished all the documents connected to the sale contract in question and the relevant public notaries’ professional fees and taxes without any objection.
19.  With regard to the lawfulness of the police officers’ presence on the applicant organisation’s premises, the court held that the said premises did not constitute a home, room, annex or closed area attached to a home or a room and that entering such premises had therefore not constituted the offence of unlawful home intrusion. It considered that in classifying the latter act as an offence, the legislature had been concerned only with entering or refusing to leave areas which were closely connected to a person’s private life and where the person concerned conducted activities away from the eyes of the public which were closely related to his or her personal life. A public notary’s office did not comply with the aforementioned criteria because it was a place for a professional activity, open to the public during working hours and designed for a public activity. Moreover, the relevant domestic legislation concerning public notaries did not impose on interested individuals special rules in respect of entering a public notary’s office. The two police officers’ presence on the applicant organisation’s premises had not constituted any other offences either. They could have protected the victims’ property by taking property preservation measures only after establishing that an offence had been committed.
20.  The court also held that the seizure of the relevant documents and sums of money had been justified and lawful because they amounted to evidence which could be used in criminal proceedings and could clarify the circumstances of a criminal case. In addition, D.O.R.’s statement that the police officers had failed to mention his objections in the report produced on the day of the incident was relatively untrustworthy, given that as a public notary he was aware that he could have asked for any objections voiced by him to be included in the report; otherwise he could have refused to sign the said report.
21.  The court furthermore held that the police officers who had asked the employees of the applicant organisation to give statements had not breached the relevant domestic rules concerning professional secrecy because the information provided by the said employees with regard to the commission of an offence had not amounted to them being formally heard as witnesses in the case. Moreover, the domestic rules concerning professional secrecy applicable to employees of a public notary’s office had not prevented them from providing relevant information or from allowing access to documents to anyone proving a legitimate right or interest, such as police officers exercising their professional duty.
22.  The court concluded that the applicant organisation was mainly unhappy with the fact that the sale contract and the public notaries’ professional fees seized by the police officers had been returned to the alleged victims of the offence and not to the organisation. The court considered, however, that such a measure could not be contested by way of an appeal against the prosecutor office’s decisions but rather by a complaint lodged with the prosecutor’s office against the acts and measures taken by the police officers.
23.  The applicant organisation appealed on points of fact and law (recurs) against the judgment and reiterated in part the arguments raised before the first-instance court. In addition, it argued, inter alia, that according to the Court’s case-law the fact that the police officers had entered its premises and subsequently had refused to leave amounted to a breach of its rights, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The operation had not concerned the commission of an offence, as the sale contract validated by the applicant organisation had not been a forged one. The statements given by its employees could not be categorised as mere information and had in fact amounted to witness testimony. According to the relevant rules concerning professional secrecy, only specially assigned magistrates could access public notary documents and police officers could therefore not be considered to constitute persons who could legitimately justify such access. Also, the first-instance court’s finding that the applicant organisation could have vented its discontent with the unlawful seizure of its fees by the police officers by means of a complaint against the acts and measures taken by the police officers (rather than by means of a criminal complaint lodged against the perpetrators – see paragraph 22 above) had amounted to a breach of its right of access to court.
24.  By a final judgment of 25 January 2010 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant organisation’s appeal on points of fact and law and upheld the decisions of the prosecutor’s office and the judgment of the first-instance court. It held, among other things, that the police officers had acted within the context of a criminal investigation and in their professional capacity. According to the relevant criminal procedure rules, police officers were entitled and had a duty to carry out operations seeking to identify and investigate unlawful acts and to gather and seize relevant evidence. Furthermore, any natural and legal person had a duty to turn over impugned evidence. The applicant organisation’s submissions that the police officers had entered its premises outside working hours and had acted unlawfully in seizing the relevant documents, taxes and fees were unsubstantiated.
25.  On 15 January and 11 June 2008 – within the framework of the criminal investigation initiated by the domestic authorities against the organised criminal group allegedly involved in immovable property fraud – the applicant organisation lodged a complaint with the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office in respect of the acts and measures taken by the police officers. It asked the prosecutor’s office to quash the acts and measures taken by the police officers and to order the return of the original documents produced by the applicant organisation and of the relevant fees and taxes seized by the police officers. In addition, it stated that if the prosecutor’s office refused to order the return of the relevant fees the applicant organisation would join the criminal proceedings opened against the criminal group as a civil party.
26.  On 8 July 2010 the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant organisation that the criminal case in question had been referred to the domestic courts which had the authority to examine its requests.
27.  On 3 August 2010 the applicant organisation informed the Bucharest County Court that it had joined as a civil party the criminal proceedings opened by the domestic authorities against the organised criminal group allegedly involved in immovable property fraud. It asked the court to order the return of the original documents produced by the applicant organisation and to order the defendants to return the relevant fees and taxes seized by the police officers and to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
28.  On 30 November 2010 the Bucharest County Court convicted the members of the organised criminal group involved in immovable property fraud and annulled the sale contract validated by the applicant organisation. In addition, it dismissed the applicant organisation’s requests for the return of the original documents produced by it and the relevant fees and taxes on the grounds that the documents in question had been annulled and the relevant fees and taxes returned to the private party who had sold the property and who had been the victim of the offences committed by the criminal group. Moreover, the applicant organisation had not proved that it had suffered non-pecuniary damage.
29.  The applicant organisation appealed against the judgment.
30.  On 17 November 2011 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant organisation’s appeal. It held, inter alia, that if the applicant organisation considered that it had suffered some damage following its validation of the subsequently annulled sale contract, it could initiate proceedings in tort before the civil courts and prove the alleged damage. Given the offences which were the object of the criminal case at hand, the applicant organisation could not be awarded damages within the framework of the criminal proceedings.
31.  There is no evidence in the file that the applicant organisation appealed on points of fact and law against the judgment of the second‑instance court.