| Applicant name | FIODOROV & CO S.R.L. |
| Applicant type | Legal person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Moldova |
| Application no. | 78280/14 |
| Date | 27/02/2025 |
| Judges | Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, María Elósegui, Diana Sârcu |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | No legal basis |
| Type of privacy | procedural privacy; locational privacy |
| Keywords | Search; warrent |
| Facts of the case | The present case concerns the search of the applicant company’s business premises without a valid search warrant. The applicant company complains under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention about the unlawfulness of the search and the unsatisfactory judicial remedy. |
| Analysis | The Court notes that the search of the applicant company’s premises was carried out in the absence of a search warrant and the authorities did not seek the authorisation of the search a posteriori before the investigating judge. Further, the Court notes that the Government had not cited any legal provision or domestic practice which would substantiate their argument that the absence of objections by the applicant’s representative during the search or that the material error in the location subject to the search had not required the a posteriori judicial review by an investigating judge as required by Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observes that the investigating judge seized by the applicant company conceded that the search should have stopped and no seizure should have been carried once it had become clear that the location of the search had not been within the scope of the search warrant. However, while the investigating judge explained how the error could have occurred, he had not found the search lawful and had explicitly declined its jurisdiction to declare the search unlawful. In these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that these proceedings amounted to a proper control of lawfulness of the search. |
| Other Article violation? | no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints; |
| Damage awarded | a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company, in respect of costs and expenses; |
| Documents | Judgment |