9.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Tartu, Estonia. He is the owner of the company AS Giga, with a registered office in Tartu. The company has been involved in reconstructing the public heat supply of the city. 10.  On 14 November 1995 the Tartu police initiated criminal proceedings against the head of the Energy Department of the Tartu City Government. The proceedings concerned the alleged abuse of his position in contracting a loan with the Ministry of Finance for reconstructing the city's heat supply in an amount higher than approved and guaranteed by the City Council. In the context of these criminal proceedings the Tartu Public Prosecutor (Tartu prokurör) approved a search of the applicant's company's premises on 14 November 1995 in order to determine whether there were any original bookkeeping documents which might provide information with regard to the unauthorised use of the loan. 11.  On 15 and 20 November 1995 the Tartu police searched the company's premises and seized respectively 36 and 50 files of documents, which comprised practically all of the company's bookkeeping records from the years 1994 and 1995. The documents seized were recorded by the files and not individually. The applicant estimates that their total number amounted to approximately 10,000.
All seized files were placed in a separate room in the Tartu Police Prefecture for examination by the State auditors, who were assisted by staff of the financial department of the Tartu City Government. 12.  On 16 November 1995 the applicant filed a complaint with the Tartu Public Prosecutor alleging that the police search and seizure of documents had been unlawful. On 17 November 1995 he complained also to the State Public Prosecutor (Riigiprokurör), submitting that the wholesale nature of the seizure and the failure to make an individual record of the seized items were inconsistent with the requirements of Articles 139 and 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13.  On 22 November 1995 the police informed the applicant that he was free to consult the seized documents at the police station for the continued activities of his company. 14.  On 23 November 1995 the Tartu Public Prosecutor instructed the police to make a record of the individual characteristics of the seized documents and to return the documents irrelevant to the criminal investigation. 15.  On 24 November 1995, in response to the applicant's complaint, the Tartu Public Prosecutor informed him of his instructions to the police to correct the deficiencies in the recording of documents and pointed out that the police had given the applicant access to the documents with the possibility of making photocopies. The prosecutor also stated that his action was open to appeal to the State Public Prosecutor. 16.  On 27 November 1995 the applicant filed a complaint with the State Public Prosecutor. On the same day the police returned to the applicant's company three previously seized files. 17.  By a letter of 30 November 1995 the Deputy State Public Prosecutor informed the applicant that he had examined the complaint. He noted that the searches had been approved by the prosecutor, but acknowledged that, due to the large number of documents, their recording had been deficient. He further noted that the Tartu Public Prosecutor had ordered the police to remove the shortcomings. He accepted the measures of the Tartu Public Prosecutor and the reply issued to the applicant on 24 November 1995. It was also noted that the applicant was free to use the documents during their examination by the State auditors. 18.  On 10 January 1996 the applicant's company filed a complaint with the Tartu Administrative Court (Tartu Halduskohus) asking it to declare unlawful the measures of the Tartu City Council in connection with the inspection of the company's records as well as the police search and seizure of documents. 19.  By a judgment of 13 September 1996 the Administrative Court dismissed both parts of the company's complaint. Regarding the impugned police acts the court found that, according to Article 3 § 2(3) of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure, it lacked competence to deal with complaints which fell under civil and criminal procedure. The Administrative Court could not interfere with criminal proceedings and examine the lawfulness of the acts of the bodies of preliminary investigation. 20.  In an appeal against the judgment the applicant argued that the police had abused its powers and that its actions violated the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Constitution and the Convention. 21.  On 22 November 1996 the Tartu Court of Appeal (Tartu Ringkonnakohus) confirmed the lack of competence to review police actions in criminal proceedings. It held that in the administrative proceedings it could not be examined whether the police, in effecting the search and seizures, had acted contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Constitution or the Convention. According to Article 120 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, supervision over the lawfulness of measures taken by the police in the context of criminal proceedings rested with the public prosecutor, not with the administrative court. The Court of Appeal quashed in part the judgment of the first instance court and terminated the administrative proceedings in respect of the complaint concerning the police actions. 22.  On 15 January 1997 the Supreme Court (Riigikohus) refused to grant the company leave to appeal. 23.  In the meantime, on 23 October 1996, the police decided to return twelve previously seized files. The applicant refused in writing to accept them, stating that their seizure had not been documented and that the act of return did not describe each document individually.
On 22 November 1996 these documents were sent to the Tartu City Court (Tartu Linnakohus), where the applicant's criminal case was pending (see paragraph 26 below). The applicant agreed to accept the documents in 1997. 
Of the 86 files seized from the applicant's company on 15 and 20 November 1995, 28 files have been returned to the company. The applicant estimates that at least 5000 – 6000 documents are still not returned. 24.  On 4 December 1995, following the seizure of documents, the Tartu police initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant on the suspicion of having misused his official position in the company.
On 22 March 1996 the applicant was formally charged with misusing his position as well as with tax evasion and falsification of documents, but on 28 June 1996 the charge concerning misuse of position was dropped.
On 1 July 1996 a further charge of fraud was brought against the applicant. 25.  On 31 October 1996 the preliminary investigation was complete and the case was sent to the Tartu City Court for trial. 26.  By a judgment of 13 October 1997 the City Court convicted the applicant of the charges and imposed a suspended sentence of 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment. It did find that in seizing of documents from the applicant's company the preliminary investigation authorities had infringed upon the procedural requirements stipulated in Article 140 of the Criminal Code. In particular, they had seized documents which were not relevant as evidence in the criminal case, had failed to record the documents individually and had taken away entire files. This had hampered the preliminary investigation of the case as well as its examination by the court. 27.  On 18 October 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgement with the Tartu Court of Appeal. He contended, inter alia, that the indiscriminate seizure of documents from his company AS Giga on 15 and 20 November 1995 violated his rights of defence since he was deprived of the opportunity to submit necessary documents which were in the hands of the police. 28.  By a judgment of 12 January 1998 the Tartu Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal on the procedure and upheld his conviction. As regards the procedure, it found that the seizure of documents was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Article 140 of the Criminal Code. The records contained a description of the seized files, their number and the number of pages therein. The documents were thus sufficiently individualised. 29.  On 17 September 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction as well as the procedure, claiming that the manner in which the seizure had been carried out had adversely affected his defence rights. 30.  On 8 April 1998 the Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the lower courts with regard to the applicant's conviction. It acknowledged that in effecting the seizure of documents the procedural norms were not strictly followed, but found that such infringement was not substantial and did not hinder the thorough, complete and objective examination of the case or prevent the court from rendering a lawful and substantiated judgment. It considered that a detailed description of documents in the record of seizure was necessary only when they were used as evidence in the criminal case.