5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Chişinău. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  In 1992 the applicant founded a company (Rusman) and was its director until 1998. 8.  In July 2001 he became a licensed lawyer. On an unknown date in 2002 he became Rusman’s lawyer. 9.  On 28 July 2003 S. P., the director of another company, was killed and a criminal investigation was initiated into the case. On 23 February 2004 the applicant signed a contract to represent B., who was suspected of the murder of S. P. According to the Government, the investigator found certain links between the activities of Rusman and S. P.’s death and decided to hear the applicant as a witness in respect of the activities of Rusman. 10.  On 26 May 2004 the applicant was summoned to appear on the same day before T., an investigator of the Chişinău Police Inspectorate, in order to testify as a witness in his client’s case. Since he only received the summons fifteen minutes before the time indicated to appear, he was fifteen minutes late in arriving at the investigator’s office. T. had left by then. On the same date the applicant sent a telegram to the investigator, informing him of these events. 11.  Also on 26 May 2004 T. ordered the search of the applicant’s office. The decision read as follows:
“Officer T. [description of duties],
Having examined the materials of criminal file [no. of file] initiated under Article 145(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
Has established that on 28 July 2003 at approximately 19.00 in Chişinău [address] [P. S.] was shot and killed with an unidentified firearm.
Following a criminal and an operational investigation it was determined that B. [address], who has been arrested and is detained at [a detention centre], was connected with the murder of [P. S.]
Taking into account that evidence in the file and the material obtained through the operational investigation allow a well-founded assumption that objects of interests to the operational investigation and which are material evidence in the criminal case, can be found at [the applicant’s] office in Lex Consulting situated at [address], on the basis of Article 125 CPP.
Decides
To order a search of [the applicant’s] office in Lex Consulting situated at [address] with the aim of finding and taking as evidence objects of interest to the operational investigation and which are material evidence in the criminal case.” 12.  On the same date T. issued an identically worded warrant for the search of the applicant’s apartment. 13.  Following T.’s order, also on 26 May 2004 a prosecutor asked the Râşcani District Court to issue a warrant for the search of the applicant’s office since “objects which are of interest to the operational investigation and which are material evidence in the criminal case, are at [the applicant’s] workplace”. An identically worded request was made in respect of the applicant’s apartment. 14.  Still on the same day, Judge E.C. from the Râşcani District Court adopted a decision authorising the search of the applicant’s office. The decision read as follows:
“The court ... has examined in camera the request of the section prosecutor from the Prosecutor General’s Office concerning the authorisation of a search.
The court established:
In the present request permission is requested to authorise the search of [the applicant’s] office in Lex Consulting S.R.L. situated at [address] in respect of the criminal file [file number] initiated in respect of the crime provided for in Article 145(2) of the Criminal Code, concerning the murder of [S. P.] which took place on 28 July 2003 at approximately 19.00 in Chişinău at [address] with an unidentified firearm.
The court considers that the request is lawful and well grounded, and, based on Articles 125, 301 and 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court:
Orders
To authorise a search at [the applicant’s] office at Lex Consulting S.R.L. situated at [address].
The decision is final.”
An identically worded decision authorised a search of the applicant’s apartment. 15.  On 27 May 2004 the applicant complained to the Râşcani District Court of unlawful actions by the investigator. In particular, he relied on Article 90(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP, see paragraph 26 below), which prohibited the hearing as a witness of a lawyer representing an accused in the same case. He finally requested the court “not to take into account any statements he had made because they would have been made under duress and the investigator had taken advantage of his ill health as he had been on sick leave at the time, being treated for blood poisoning”. 16.  On 28 May 2004 T. summoned the applicant again for 3 July 2004. On the same day he issued an order requiring the applicant to be brought before him by force because of his unexplained failure to appear as a witness before the investigating authority on 25 and 26 May 2004. 17.  On 31 May 2004 the applicant was brought by force before the investigating authority. On the same day he made statements relating to his client’s case. He mentioned, as in the record of the interview, that he should not be examined as a witness as he was the lawyer of an accused in the same case. 18.  Also on 31 May 2004 T. decided to remove the applicant as a representative of his client in the case because:
“... during the criminal investigation it was established that [the applicant] had been involved in the economic activities of Rusman Ltd as a result of which there is a need to hear him as a witness”. 19.  After the interrogation, T. informed the applicant of the two decisions adopted on 26 May 2004 authorising the searches of his home and office and gave him copies of these decisions. The applicant complained that these decisions did not include any relevant reasons. 20.  On the same day the applicant’s office was searched in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer, followed by a search at his apartment. In the minutes of the search at both places the aim of the search was noted as “the discovery of a mobile telephone and documents regarding Rusman Ltd”. A proposal was made to hand over the mobile telephone and documents regarding Rusman Ltd and then a search of the Lex Consulting offices took place. Nothing was discovered or taken from the applicant’s office. According to the Government, the search lasted approximately thirty-five minutes. The record mentioned the time the search started but not the time it ended. It also mentioned that a complaint had been made about the unlawfulness of the search at the applicant’s office. 21.  According to the record of the search of the applicant’s apartment, a mobile telephone was given to the investigators at their request. It was returned the following day. According to the parties, his home was searched (for about 20 minutes, as confirmed by the record). The applicant added that the telephone taken by the investigators belonged to his wife. 22.  On 8 June 2004 the applicant submitted to the Râşcani District Court an addendum to his complaint of 27 May 2004. He claimed that he had not received any summons other than the one requesting him to appear on 26 May 2004 and that there was no evidence to the contrary. He also noted that the questions asked on 31 May 2004 concerned issues of which he had knowledge as a result of his activity as a legal representative in his client’s case. He asked the court for a ruling that the actions of the investigating authority were unlawful, for cancellation of the orders to bring him to the prosecutor by force and to remove him as his client’s representative and for a decision to be adopted informing the prosecuting authority and the Ministry of the Interior of the unlawful acts committed. He relied, inter alia, on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. 23.  The Râşcani District Court scheduled the examination of the applicant’s complaint for 10 June 2004. On that day he sought the withdrawal of Judge E. C. because she had taken the decisions authorising the searches of his office and apartment. He submitted that the relevant decisions were unreasoned and did not mention his status as the lawyer of an accused in the case in respect of whom the search had been ordered, which suggested that the judge had not even considered the case before signing the decision. In addition, the decision itself did not give any time-limits for making the searches, the aims of the searches or the person(s) authorised to carry them out, contrary to Article 306 CCP. Finally, the judge allegedly took the side of the prosecution, thus infringing the right to equality of arms. In an addendum, the applicant mentioned that he was about to lodge a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights about the searches and emphasised the superficial manner in which the judge had examined the investigator’s request since she had failed to note the applicant’s status as a legal representative. On the same date, another judge of the Râşcani District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for Judge E.C. to be withdrawn. 24.  The Râşcani District Court examined the applicant’s complaint on 14 June 2004 and rejected it. The court found that the applicant had been asked questions regarding Rusman Ltd, where he had been a director until 1998, and not about anything he could have found out from his client. In addition, he had been removed as a legal representative in order to make it possible to question him as a witness. The court found, having analysed all the materials in the file, that the actions of the investigating authority, including the orders to bring in the applicant by force and his removal as his client’s representative, had been lawful and well-founded. The decision was final. No reply was given to the applicant’s complaint about the searches of his office and home. 25.  According to the applicant, the investigating authority presented the criminal file to the court and the court consulted it before adopting its decision. He and his lawyer were not given access to it. His request to have access to the file was allegedly rejected.