FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF \u2018ETICA\u2019PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC NOTARY ORGANISATIONv. ROMANIA
\n(Application no. 43190\/10)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n24 July 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of \u2018Etica\u2019Professional Public Notary Organisationv.\u00a0Romania,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President, Having deliberated in private on 3 July 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 43190\/10) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Romanian legal entity, the \u201cEtica\u201d Office of Associated Public Notaries (\u201cthe applicant organisation\u201d), on 17 June 2010.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant organisation was represented by Mr D.O. R\u0103dulescu (hereinafter referred to as D.O.R.), one of the members of the applicant organisation. The Romanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant organisation alleged that the unlawful entry of police officers onto its premises and their subsequent actionshad impinged on its duty of professional secrecy and had breached its right to private life, home and correspondence, as protected by Article 8 of the Convention. In addition, the applicant organisation alleged that the unlawful seizure by the police officers of fees and taxes belonging to ithad amounted to a breach of its property rights, as protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 September 2015 the application was communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 March 2016 the applicant organisation informed the Court that it had changed its name to the \u201cEtica\u201d Professional Public Notary Organisation.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. Having considered the Government\u2019s objection, the Court rejects it.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant organisation is a public notary professional associationand has its main office in Bucharest.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The background to the case<\/strong><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0According 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.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Eventually 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.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The 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\u2019s employees.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0According 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\u00a01,000 and 12,215 Romanian Lei (RON \u2013 approximately EUR 3,470), representing public notary fees and the applicable tax for the registration of the sale in the immovable property register.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Criminal proceedings brought by the applicant organisation against two police officers<\/strong><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 March 2009 the Bucharest prosecutor\u2019s office noted that the police officershad 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 outan 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 prosecutorwould 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.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 August 2009 a prosecutor attached to the Bucharest Prosecutor\u2019s 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\u2011handed. 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\u2019s premises had not amounted to the offence of unlawful home intrusion because the premises of the applicant organisation constituted by their naturea 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 beenmet. Consequently, no damage had been caused given that the valuables seized by the officers had concerned the commission of offences.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant organisation challenged the prosecutor\u2019s decision before the superior prosecutor attached to the Bucharest Prosecutor\u2019s Office.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 August 2009 the superior prosecutor dismissed the applicant organisation\u2019s challenge as ill-founded.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 September 2009 the applicant organisation lodged an appeal against the prosecutor office\u2019s 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 \u00a7 2(b) of the Romanian Constitution (see paragraph 32 below). They had not been seeking to protect other people\u2019s 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 \u2013 indisponibilizareabunului). Moreover, the two above-mentioned police officers had entered the premises accompanied by their colleagues and had remained there outside the applicant organisation\u2019s working hours. Also, theyhad unlawfully seized the public notaries\u2019 professional fees and returned them to the private party who had been the victim of the alleged fraud. Furthermore, theyhad failed to include in the report produced on the day of the incident the applicant organisation\u2019s objections against (i) the police officers\u2019 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.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 November 2009 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant organisation\u2019s appeal and upheld the prosecutor office\u2019s 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\u2019\u00a0professional fees and taxes without any objection.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0With regard to the lawfulness of the police officers\u2019 presence on the applicant organisation\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s office. The two police officers\u2019 presence on the applicant organisation\u2019s premises had not constituted any other offences either. They could have protected the victims\u2019 property by taking property preservation measures only after establishing that an offence had been committed.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0The court concluded that the applicant organisation was mainly unhappy with the fact that the sale contract and the public notaries\u2019\u00a0professional 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\u2019s decisions but rather by a complaintlodged with the prosecutor\u2019s office against the acts and measures taken by the police officers.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The 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\u2019s 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 concernedthe 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\u2019s 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 \u2013 see paragraph 22 above) had amounted to a breach of its right of access to court.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0By a final judgment of 25 January 2010 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant organisation\u2019s appeal on points of fact and law and upheld the decisions of the prosecutor\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Other relevant information<\/strong><\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 January and11 June 2008 \u2013 within the framework of the criminal investigation initiated by the domestic authorities against the organised criminal group allegedly involved in immovable property fraud \u2013 the applicant organisation lodged a complaint with the Bucharest Prosecutor\u2019s Officein respect of the acts and measures taken by the police officers. It asked the prosecutor\u2019s 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\u2019s office refused to order the return of the relevant fees the applicant organisation wouldjoin the criminal proceedings opened against the criminal group as a civil party.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 July 2010 the Bucharest Prosecutor\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 August 2010 the applicant organisation informed the Bucharest County Court that it hadjoinedas 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.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0On 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\u2019s 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 ithad suffered non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant organisation appealed against the judgment.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 November 2011 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant organisation\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0There is no evidence in the file that the applicant organisation appealed on points of fact and law against the judgment of the second\u2011instance court.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0Article 27 of the Constitution provides among other things that no one can enter or remain in a person\u2019s domicile or residence without that person\u2019s consent. Exceptions may be made under the law for situations concerning the prevention of threats to a person\u2019s life, physical integrity or property.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0Articles 96, 97, 99 and 202 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure provided, among other things, that investigating authorities had to seize objects and documents which might serve as evidence in a criminal trial. Any legal or natural person had a duty to turn over any such objects or documents upon the request of the investigating authorities. If the object or document was confidential or secret, it had to be turned over in such a manner as to preserve its secrecy or confidentiality. The investigating authorities had to gather the information and evidence necessary for solving a case, and they could order the forcible seizure of the object or documentsought in the event that it was not turned over voluntarily.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0Article 29 of the Rules of Law no. 36\/1995 on public notaries, as in force at the time, provided that the duty of public notaries and of staff members of public notary offices to preserve professional secrecy prohibited them from providing information and granting access to public notary documents to other individuals except for the parties involved, their heirs or legal representatives, or those who could demonstrate a right or a legitimate interest. A public notary called to testify before an investigating authority could be exempted from the obligation topreserve professional secrecy only by those with an interest under the law in preserving the secret. The original documents kept in the public notary office\u2019s archives couldbe accessed by a magistrate assigned for this purpose by the relevant judicial authority. If the original documents were investigated in respect of suspected fraud they could be seized and if declared forged they could be kept in the casefile. The judgment or the prosecutor\u2019s order declaring the documents forged had to be communicated; otherwise the document had to be returned.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant organisation complained that the entry of police officers onto its premises and the seizure of documents, public notary fees and taxes, as well as the questioning of its staff members,were unlawful, had impinged on its duty of professional secrecy andhad breached its right to home, private life and correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The Government\u2019s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies<\/em><\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the applicant organisation had initiated domestic proceedings only against two of the police officers and that it had failed to complain to the domestic authorities of the alleged abuses perpetrated by the other police officers. Consequently, the part of the applicant organisation\u2019s complaint concerning the other police officers was inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant organisation did not submit observations on this point.<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates the general principles concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies summarised in the case ofGherghina v. Romania([GC] (dec.), no. 42219\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 83-89, 9 July 2015).<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0In the instant case, the Court notes that the applicant organisationopened formal domestic court proceedings against only two of the allegedly thirty police officers who were present on or around its premises. The Court furthermore notes that it is not disputed by the Government that had they been successful, the criminal proceedings opened by the applicant organisation against the two police officers would have provided it with some form of redress for the alleged breach of its rights.<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0In these circumstances, the Court finds it irrelevant that the applicant organisation initiated the aforementioned proceedings only against a small number of police officers and not against all of them.<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that the Government\u2019s preliminary objection of non\u2011exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Government\u2019s objection of incompatibility rationemateriae<\/em><\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contended that according to the available evidence, the police officers did not carry out a search of the applicant organisation\u2019s premises within the meaning of the criminal procedure rules. Furthermore, the police officers did not enter the offices of the public notaries, and even when collecting the relevant evidence they remained in the waiting area, which was open to the general public. Given that the police officers were not present at the signing of the sale contract behind closed doors, Article 8 of the Convention was not applicable to the instant case in so far as it concerned the applicant organisation\u2019s right to respect for its home.<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant organisation argued that according to the Court\u2019s case-law, Article 8 of the Convention was applicable to cases where a person\u2019s office was searched on the basis of a general order issued by a prosecutor\u2019s office or where objects found in that office were seized.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant principles concerning the scope of Article 8 of the Conventionin respect of circumstances involving the presence of State authorities on the premises of an organisation or company and the seizure of documents and data are set out inBernh Larsen Holding AS and Others v.\u00a0Norway (no. 24117\/08, \u00a7 104, 14 March 2013).<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that on 13 December 2007 a significant number of police officers surrounded and entered the premises of the applicant organisation and askedD.O.R. to provide accessto and to turn over all relevant documents, fees and taxes connected to an immovable property sale contract which had been concluded by two private parties and had been notarised by D.O.R. Moreover, it is undisputed by the parties that the police officers seized the aforementioned relevant document, fees and taxes and used them as evidence in criminal proceedings initiated by the domestic authorities against one of the aforementioned private parties. Furthermore, they questioned some of the applicant organisation\u2019s staff members with regard to matters concerning the signing of the sale contract (see paragraphs 8\u201310 above).<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0The Court also observes that under the relevant criminal procedure rules the disputed measure was aimed at collecting the information and evidence necessary for solving a criminal case. It was not equivalent to a searchandwas not enforceable on pain of criminal sanctions. However, the applicant organisation was nonetheless under a legal obligation to comply with the police officers\u2019 demands to enable such access and to turn over the relevant documents, fees and taxes, and the said officers were legally allowed to forcefully seize objects or documents which were not turned over voluntarily (see paragraph 33 above).<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0In spite of the Government\u2019s submissions,the Court considers \u2013given the applicant organisation\u2019s legal obligation to comply with the police officers\u2019 demands \u2013 that the police officers\u2019presence on its premises, the questioning of its staff and the seizure of the relevant documents and valuablesconstituted an interference with its \u201chome\u201d and \u201ccorrespondence\u201d within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that the Government\u2019s preliminary objection of incompatibility rationemateriae must be dismissed.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The Government\u2019s objection of incompatibility ratione personae<\/em><\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the applicant organisation had not submitted a valid application to the Court and that therefore the case had to be dismissed as incompatible ratione personae with the Convention provisions. They argued that the application had been lodged by the applicant organisation and that the application form had been signed only by D.O.R., who acted as the organisation\u2019s representative. However, the seal of the applicant organisation had not been affixed to the application form and D.O.R. had failed to submit a power of attorney proving that he was the representative of the applicant organisation. According to the available information, the applicant organisation was a professional association of three public notaries, including D.O.R. Consequently, in the absence of proof of D.O.R.\u2019s official authorisation, the application to the Court was not the result of the applicant organisation actually and validly exercising its right of individual petition.<\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that neither D.O.R. nor the other two members of the professional association had lodged complaints before the Court on their own behalf. In this context, it could not be inferred that the situation of one of the members of the professional association, acting only as the organisation\u2019s representative, could be confused with the situation of the organisation itself.<\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0 The applicant organisation argued that it had submitted a valid application to the Court. D.O.R. had signed the application form both on his own behalf and as a representative of his two daughters, who were the other two members of the professional association. The written submissions made before the Court after the case was communicated to the Government and which had been signed by D.O.R. and his daughters constituted a confirmation that the latter had empowered D.O.R. to act also on their behalf. Assuming that D.O.R. could not be considered to be a representative in this case, this would mean that he had not held this status before the two police officers either. Consequently, this would constitute an additional argument for the applicant organisation\u2019s fees to be returned.<\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant organisation contended that in any event, under the relevant domestic civil procedure rules, the application could have been signed at any stage of the proceedings before a court.<\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that according to the available information the applicant organisation is a professional association of three public notaries, comprising D.O.R. and his two daughters. Moreover, it notes that the application was lodged by the applicant organisation and that the application form was signed only by D.O.R., who acted as the organisation\u2019s representative. Furthermore, it notes that theapplication form did not bear the applicant organisation\u2019s official stamp and that D.O.R. had not submitted a power of attorney proving that he was the representative of the applicant organisation.<\/p>\n 54.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes, however, that according to the available evidence D.O.R. acted as the applicant organisation\u2019s sole legal representative throughout the criminal proceedings initiated by the organisation before the domestic authorities. Moreover, the written submissions made to the Court after the case was communicated to the Government were signed both by D.O.R. and his daughters and confirmed that the latter had empowered D.O.R. to act also on their behalf.<\/p>\n 55.\u00a0In these circumstances, the Court cannot endorse the Government\u2019s arguments that the mere presence of D.O.R.\u2019s signature on the application did not amount to the\u00a0actual and valid exercising of the applicant organisation\u2019s right of individual petition.<\/p>\n 56.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that the Government\u2019s preliminary objection of incompatibility ratione personae must be dismissed.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The Government\u2019s objection that the complaint is manifestly ill\u2011founded<\/em><\/p>\n 57.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the police officers had seized only the documents and valuables which were closely connected to the offence in progress. Moreover, there was no statement by D.O.R. or by the applicant organisation\u2019s employees attached to the domestic criminal case-file. Consequently, the Government considered that the domestic authorities had not breached the applicant organisation\u2019s and its staff members\u2019 right to preserve professional secrecy. Therefore, this part of the application was manifestly ill-founded.<\/p>\n 58.\u00a0The applicant organisation did not specifically comment on this point.<\/p>\n 59.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that the preliminary objection raised by the Government is so closely linked to the substance of the applicant organisation\u2019s complaint that it must be joined to the merits (see, for example, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080\/13, \u00a7 142, ECHR 2017).<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 submissions<\/em><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0The applicant organisation<\/p>\n 60.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant organisation submitted that under the relevant criminal procedure rules police officers did not have authority to carry out a criminal investigation concerning acts undertaken by public notaries. It was the Prosecutor\u2019s Office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal which had authority in that regard. The police officers had acted in the absence of any order being issued by a prosecutor. Moreover, the applicant organisation had objectedto the seizure of documents and sums of money. However, the two police officers who had remained on the applicant organisation\u2019s premises long after working hours had ended had informed its staff members that they had to accompany them to the police station and would have to wait there until the officers obtained a court seizure order.<\/p>\n 61.\u00a0\u00a0The two police officers had taken witness statements from two of the applicant organisation\u2019s staff members, even though the latter had been bound by professional secrecy. Moreover, the sale contract validated by the applicant organisation had been valid in itself. It had been annulled only because the previous sale contract that had been signed with regard to the same property had been unlawful.<\/p>\n 62.\u00a0\u00a0The police officers had not been aimed at catching suspects red\u2011handed in the commission of an offence as that offence had already been committed as a result of the repeated sale of the same property. Moreover, the police officers had not remained only in the area of its premises which was open to the public, as the documents and sums of money had not been stored in this area.<\/p>\n 63.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant organisation submitted that the interference with its rights had been neither necessary nor proportionate. Moreover, a retroactive judicial review could not substitute a preliminary authorisation for the police officers\u2019 actions, which had been mandatory.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0The Government<\/p>\n 64.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the acts and measures taken by the police officers had been prescribed by law and had pursued a legitimate aim \u2013 specifically, the protection of public order, the prevention of offences and the protection of the rights of others.<\/p>\n 65.\u00a0\u00a0The measures taken by the police officers had been proportionate to the aim pursued. Their mission had been to discover evidence which could prove decisive for a criminal investigation concerning serious offences. They had seized only a small number of documents and valuables, and only those which had been closely connected to the offence in progress. Moreover, they had entered the premises of the applicant organisation during working hours and had remained in the waiting area. In these circumstances, the police officers had not been required to obtain a warrant issued by a judge. Moreover, D.O.R. had turned over the relevant documents and sums of money without any objection.<\/p>\n 66.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant organisation had brought criminal proceedings against two of the police officers andthe domestic courts had examined the merits of its complaint and had dismissed it as ill-founded. Consequently, although the police officers\u2019 actions had not been subject to a preliminary judicial review, they had been subject to a retroactive one.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n 67.\u00a0\u00a0In the instant case the Court notes that it has already been established that the actions and measures taken by the police officers while they were present on the applicant organisation\u2019s premises amounted to an interference with its home and correspondence (see paragraph 47 above).<\/p>\n 68.\u00a0 In so far as the applicant organisation argued that the acts and measures undertaken by the police officers had also amounted to an interference with its right to respect for private life, the Court can accept that the seized documents might have contained some personal information about the employees of the organisation. However, no such individual complained of an interference with his or her private life, either before the national courts or before the Court. In the absence of such a complaint, the Court does not find it necessary to determine whether there has been an interference with \u201cprivate life\u201d in the instant case (see, mutatis mutandis,Petri Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882\/99, \u00a7 72, 27\u00a0September 2005).<\/p>\n 69.\u00a0\u00a0Next, it is to be assessed whether the interference with the applicant organisation\u2019s rights was \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d,pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in that paragraph, and was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d to achieve that aim.<\/p>\n
\nEgidijus K\u016bris,
\nIulia Motoc, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n