FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KRIEVIŅA v. LATVIA
(Application no. 31381/17)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
27 February 2025
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Krieviņa v. Latvia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Alena Poláčková, President,
 Artūrs Kučs,
 Anna Adamska-Gallant, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 31381/17) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 24 April 2017 by a Latvian national, Ms Maija Krieviņa (“the applicant”), who was born in 1978, lives in Jūrmala and was represented by Mr J. Balodis-Bolužs, a lawyer practising in Riga;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Latvian Government (“the Government”), represented by their former Agent, Ms K. Līce, and subsequently by their current Agent, Ms E.L. Vītola;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to dismiss the Government’s objection to the examination of the application by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 30 January 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about a search of her apartment and her company’s premises and the seizure and retention of several of her electronic devices. 2. On 16 August 2016 the Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption (“the Bureau”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant’s father in relation to a suspicion that he had unlawfully financed two political organisations. 3. On 29 September 2016 an investigating judge issued search warrants for the applicant’s apartment and her company’s premises. It was indicated in the warrants that they had been issued for the purpose of investigating criminal offences under sections 2882 (unlawful financing of political organisations), 2883 (facilitating the unlawful financing of political organisations) and 2884 (acceptance or extortion of unlawful funds for a political organisation) of the Criminal Law (Krimināllikums) and that they were based on the suspicion that the applicant’s father had unlawfully financed two political organisations. The operative parts of both search warrants allowed for a search of the above-mentioned premises with the aim of finding and seizing:
“... accounting documents, other documents and notes relating to the illegal financing of [one of the political organisations], minutes from meetings with people implicated in the criminal proceedings, telephones, computers and other data storage devices potentially containing information about public-order offences which might have been committed, as well as other documents and items that might have evidential value in the criminal proceedings.”
4. On 4 October 2016 officials from the Bureau and the Finance Police (Valsts ieņēmumu dienesta Finanšu policijas pārvalde) searched the applicant’s apartment and seized, among other items, her smartphone and two laptop computers. On the same day, officials from those institutions also searched the premises of the applicant’s company and seized, among other items, a computer server. On 7 October 2016 the applicant was designated as a person against whom criminal proceedings had been instituted. 5. The applicant and her company simultaneously pursued several avenues of redress in an attempt to remedy the alleged violations of their rights stemming from the searches and seizures. 6. On 14 October 2016 the applicant and her company separately contested the lawfulness of the respective search warrants and sought to have them revoked. By final decisions of 27 and 28 October 2016 respectively, the Riga Regional Court rejected those complaints. 7. On 20 October 2016 the applicant complained to the Bureau’s investigator about the seizure of her personal electronic devices. She argued that those devices contained personal and business-related data that had no relevance to the investigation. She maintained that the devices should have been inspected prior to their seizure, so that only those containing relevant data were seized. On 25 October 2016 the company also complained to the investigator about the search of its premises and the seizure of items that it alleged had no relevance to the investigation. The investigator rejected those complaints and the supervising prosecutor and a higher-ranking prosecutor dismissed subsequent appeals brought by the applicant and her company. The higher-ranking prosecutor’s decisions of 3 and 6 January 2017 were subject to a further appeal to another higher-ranking prosecutor, but neither the applicant nor her company appealed against them. 8. On 4 October 2016, immediately after the search of her apartment, the applicant requested the return of her smartphone and the two laptops that had been seized. The investigator rejected her request, and the supervising prosecutor and a higher-ranking prosecutor dismissed appeals brought by the applicant against that decision. However, in his decision of 17 November 2016, the higher-ranking prosecutor noted that he had instructed the investigator to prioritise the examination of the seized devices that were important for everyday use, so that they could be returned as soon as possible. That decision was subject to appeal to another higher-ranking prosecutor, but the applicant did not appeal against it within the 10-day time-limit. 9. On 25 October 2016 the company also requested the return of its computer server and a laptop computer that had been seized from its premises. The investigator rejected that request, and the supervising prosecutor dismissed appeals brought by the company against that decision. On 30 November 2016 the applicant’s company appealed to a higher-ranking prosecutor but received no response. 10. On 26 October 2018 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated. However, the criminal proceedings continued against other persons who were also implicated in the criminal offences in question. Those proceedings were concluded on 29 November 2019, when the prosecutor in charge of the proceedings issued a penal order sentencing the accused persons after they had pleaded guilty. 11. The parties disagreed as to whether all the items seized from the applicant’s apartment and her company’s premises had been returned. The documents submitted to the Court show that on 3 November 2016 the applicant’s lawyer received the applicant’s smartphone and one of her laptops without its hard drive. According to the applicant’s own statement, she received that laptop’s hard drive on an unspecified date in 2018, shortly after the criminal proceedings against her had been terminated. The other laptop was returned to the applicant on 26 May 2020 along with the other seized items. The Government stated that the computer server had been returned to the applicant’s company on 28 February 2018 but did not submit any documents in that regard. 12. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the searches and seizures at her apartment and her company’s premises had been disproportionate. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, she complained about the retention of her personal electronic devices and her company’s computer server.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation