Global Freedom of Expression

Español العربية

Prezhdarovi v. Bulgaria

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Electronic / Internet-based Communication
  • Date of Decision
    September 30, 2014
  • Outcome
    Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional, ECtHR, Article 8 Violation
  • Case Number
    8429/05
  • Region & Country
    Bulgaria, Europe and Central Asia
  • Judicial Body
    European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
  • Type of Law
    Criminal Law, Constitutional Law
  • Themes
    Privacy, Data Protection and Retention
  • Tags
    Electronic Search Warrant, Internet

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) ruled that the search and seizure of the applicant’s computers without a warrant by the respondent state Bulgaria, combined with the unlawful retention of computers, which was outside the scope of the search, violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). There was no dispute that the seizure of the computers—which contained personal information—constituted an interference with the private life of the applicant so the ECtHR then considered whether this interference was in accordance with the law and whether it was necessary in a democratic society. The Court noted the law allows searches without a warrant under “pressing circumstances”, but did not find the current circumstances sufficiently pressing because the searches were ordered three weeks before they were conducted. Accordingly, the ECtHR entered fines against the respondent state.


Facts

This case arises from the applicants’ challenge against the Republic of Bulgaria for the search and seizure of computers in the applicants’ “computer club.” The computer club involved the leasing of computers to customers for one Bulgarian Lev per hour. As the applicant was leasing these computers, he was required to pay licensing fees, which the he failed to renew in 2004. The police conducted a check of the business that year and issued a warning. The club was shut down for health reasons later that year.

In 2005, a complaint was lodged against the applicants for improper reproduction and distribution of computer games. The prosecutor, after finding enough information existed to move forward with the complaint, ordered the police to conduct an inquiry into the matter. In February of 2005, the police came to the computer club, and found the club to still be in operation. The officers search the club and seized the computers. The same day, a District Court Judge approved the search and seizure operation. The applicants lodged a complaint against the Court stating that the search and seizure was unlawful. This complaint was deemed inadmissible as the action had already been approved by the Court.

The applicants moved for return of the computers because they held personal information, but the motion was denied. The first applicant was charged with unlawful distribution of the computer programs, which was affirmed by the Court of Cassation. The first applicant was then sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. This appeal followed.


Decision Overview

The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) first looked at whether there was an interference with the applicant’s rights. The Court found there was no dispute that the seizure of the computers—which contained personal information—constituted an interference with the private life of the applicant. The ECtHR then looked to whether this interference was in accordance with the law and whether it was necessary in a democratic society. The Court noted the law allows searches without a warrant under “pressing circumstances”, but did not find the current circumstances sufficiently pressing because the searches were ordered three weeks before they were conducted.

Nevertheless, this lack of a judicial warrant can sometimes be remedied through retrospective review. Thus, the ECtHR examined the review that occurred after the search. The ECtHR noted that the lower court only stressed that pressing circumstances existed for the search and seizure but did not elaborate on what those circumstances in fact were. Furthermore, the applicants requested the return of their computers several times and the Court found the retention of their computers was outside the scope of the search. Therefore, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 8 ECHR, because the search and seizure was not in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the ECtHR entered fines against the respondent State.

The applicants also argued that Article 13 was violated. The ECtHR declared this argument inadmissible.

Dissent: Judge Vehabovic dissented, arguing there was not a violation of Article 8 ECHR because the Article is not applicable where a case does not involve “private” information. The dissent argued that the information on the computers in question was not “private” because the computers were freely accessible to visitors of the club.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

This case expands expression by prohibiting the search of an individual’s computers without first obtaining a search warrant, and by prohibiting the retention of computers outside the scope of what was needed for the search to be conducted.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

  • ECtHR, Rotaru v. Romania, App. No. 28341/95 (2000)
  • ECtHR, Liberty v. United Kingdom, No. 58243/00 (2008)
  • European Convention on Human Rights

    Article 34; Article 8

  • ECtHR, IIiya Stefanov v. Bulgaria, App. No. 65755/01 (2008)
  • ECtHR, Kopp v. Switzerland, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-11 (1998)
  • ECtHR, Heino v. Finland, App. No. 56720/09 (2011)
  • ECtHR, Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 48, Series A no. 256-A
  • ECtHR, Crémieux v. France, 25 February 1993, § 31, Series A no. 256-B
  • ECtHR, Miailhe v. France (no. 1), 25 February 1993, § 28, Series A no. 256-C
  • ECtHR, Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99 (2005)
  • ECtHR, Camenzind v. Switzerland, 16 December 1997, § 45, Reports 1997-VIII
  • ECtHR, Smirnova v Russia, App Nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99 (2003)
  • ECtHR, Atanasov and Ovcharov v. Bulgaria, no. 61596/00, § 70, 17 January 2008

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Bulg., Criminal Code (1968)

    Atcile 172a

  • Bulg., Judiciary Act (1994)
  • Bulg., Code of Criminal Procedure

    Article 135

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:


Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback