FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF RUTULE v. LATVIA
(Application no. 58195/16)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
24 October 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rutule v. Latvia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
 María Elósegui,
 Artūrs Kučs, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 58195/16) 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 4 October 2016 by a Latvian national, Ms Kristīne Rutule (“the applicant”), who was born in 1984 and lives in Riga;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the search of the applicant’s apartment, the seizure of her computer, and her inability to access data stored on that computer, to the Latvian Government (“the Government”), represented by their former Agent, Ms K. Līce, and subsequently by their current Agent, Ms E.L. Vītola, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the Government’s observations;
Having deliberated in private on 3 October 2024,
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 regarding a search of her home and the seizure of her computer in the course of criminal proceedings. 2. The applicant is a legal practitioner. She provided legal services to her clients from her apartment. 3. On 13 January 2016 criminal proceedings were instituted with regard to suspected forgery and fraud by a third party. On 22 February 2016 an investigator applied for a warrant to search the applicant’s apartment and seize documents and electronic storage devices that might contain information relevant to the above investigation. The request noted that a company and an individual implicated in the above offences were being represented by the applicant in civil proceedings pertaining to the same circumstances as those under investigation, and that the documents sought pertained to a meeting of that company’s shareholders, which had been held at the applicant’s apartment. 4. By a decision of 24 February 2016, the investigating judge authorised a search of the applicant’s apartment with a view to
“find[ing] and seiz[ing] documents, electronic data storage devices (computers, memory cards, discs and others) that might contain information about contracts concluded between [the implicated company] and [an implicated individual], documents, electronic storage devices (computers, memory cards, discs and others) that might contain information about the meeting of [the implicated company’s] shareholders of [date], as well as other documents and electronic storage devices that might contain information about facts or persons of importance to the investigation and have evidential value in the criminal proceedings no. ...”. 5. On 9 March 2016 two police officers conducted the search and seized, among other things, the applicant’s computer. The applicant complained to the investigator and requested that her computer be returned or that she be provided with a copy of the data stored on it. She explained that she needed the data to provide legal services to her clients. The investigator denied her request. However, by a decision of 5 May 2016 the supervising prosecutor ordered that the applicant be issued with a copy of any data that was needed in order to provide legal services and was not related to the above criminal proceedings. On 16 May 2016 the applicant gave the investigator a hard drive, which was returned to her on 3 June 2016, the data having been stored on it. The computer itself was returned to the applicant on 16 November 2016. 6. On 18 March 2016 the applicant lodged a complaint against the authorisation of the search and seizure. By a final decision of 4 April 2016, a judge of the Riga Regional Court rejected the complaint, finding that the warrant had been lawful and well-founded. 7. On 23 March 2016 the applicant was recognised as a person against whom criminal proceedings had been instituted. According to the latest available information, criminal proceedings are still pending.

Outcome for Article 8: violation