CASE OF PREZHDAROVI v. BULGARIA
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
6. The applicants were born in 1968 and 1965 respectively and live in Pazardzhik. They are spouses. 7. On 20 August 2002 the first applicant, as a sole trader, took out a bank loan in order to purchase computers and to set up a computer club. The computer club was situated in a garage owned by the applicants. The second applicant assisted the first applicant in running the club and replaced him when he was absent. 8. When he started his business, the first applicant purchased five computers and several computer games, which he installed on the computers. His customers were able to use the computers for one Bulgarian lev (BGN) per hour. 9. As the first applicant was renting the computers to his clients, he was obliged to pay the necessary licensing fees to the distributors of the companies that owned the copyright of the products. However, in 2004 the first applicant failed to renew his contracts with the distributors. 10. On 3 April 2004 the police conducted a check on the applicants’ premises and warned the first applicant to abstain from illegally reproducing and distributing software. 11. On 9 November 2004 the director of the local sanitation department at the Ministry of Health ordered that the computer club be closed down for health reasons. 12. On 31 January 2005 Mr V.E., a manager of a company that distributed computer games, lodged a complaint with the district prosecutor in Pazardzhik. Mr V.E. stated that he had visited the applicants’ computer club on several occasions in the period between September and December 2004. He claimed to have noticed that despite their lack of a software license for reproduction and distribution, the applicants had installed certain types of games on the computers and were renting them to their clients. Mr V.E. mentioned specifically some of the games. He also claimed that the applicants had visited his office several times and had been aware of the requirements concerning reproduction and distribution of computer games. Lastly, he claimed that he had warned the applicants about the possible sanctions but had received only threats in response, especially from the second applicant. 13. In an order of 2 February 2005 the district prosecutor noted that a complaint had been lodged by Mr V.E. alleging that a crime had been committed under Article 172a § 2 of the Criminal Code of 1968 (see paragraph 32 below). He further observed that there was insufficient information to justify the institution of criminal proceedings. Therefore, relying on section 119(1)(3) of the Judiciary Act 1994 (see paragraph 26 below), he ordered the police to conduct an inquiry into the computer club in order to collect more information as to whether a crime had been committed under Article 172a § 2 of the Criminal Code 1968. The prosecutor stated that when examining the computer club, in the event that the police officers established that software was being used illegally, they should take measures to secure the necessary evidence, including an onthespot inspection and search and seizure of the computers. 14. In executing the prosecutor’s order, on 14 February 2005 the police authorities drew up an action plan. A police officer with technological expertise would compare the software installed on the computers with the purchased software. In the event that discrepancies were found, the police would conduct a search and seizure. The operation was planned for 21 February 2005. 15. At approximately 3.30 p.m. on 21 February 2005 the police, including a police investigator (дознател), arrived at the computer club. The applicants claimed that at that time the computer club had been closed to the public following the order of the Ministry of Health (see paragraph 11 above). They submitted that they had been at the club with some friends and that the cash till had been on because the second applicant had just finished a typewriting job and had been paid for it. 16. The police officers noted that the computers were running and that there were people in the club. They explained the aim of the inspection. It appears that the first applicant objected to the possible search and seizure, stating that the police did not have a judicial warrant, and asked for permission to contact a lawyer. The police apparently briefly pointed to the prosecutor’s order of 2 February 2005. The first applicant was allowed to contact his lawyer but, according to the applicants’ submissions, the police refused to wait for the lawyer’s arrival. 17. The police inspected the receipts from the club’s cash till and the daily sales record and concluded that the applicants had received money that day, most probably for providing commercial services. The police then inspected the applicants’ five computers and found that a number of computer games had been installed on them. The first applicant was invited to present documents, such as purchase invoices or any other evidence of his title to the games. As he failed to do so, the police seized the computers. The search-and-seizure operation ended at 6 p.m. 18. The search-and-seizure operation was carried out in the presence of two certifying witnesses. The police drew up a report containing an inventory of the seized items, namely the computers and their content, which consisted of computer programs, computer games and films. The report was signed without comment by the certifying witnesses. The first applicant refused to comment on the report or to sign it. 19. On 22 February 2005 the police investigator sent a letter to the district prosecutor informing the prosecutor of the results of the operation. She noted that following the search-and-seizure operation, criminal proceedings (a police investigation) had been instituted against the first applicant for illegal reproduction and distribution of software. 20. On the same day, at the request of the police investigator, a District Court judge approved the search-and-seizure operation on the basis of Article 135 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 (“the 1974 Code”). The judge described factually the course of the search-and-seizure operation and briefly cited the text of Article 135 § 2, stressing that there had been pressing circumstances and that an immediate search and seizure had been the only means by which the collection and preservation of the necessary evidence could be undertaken. The decision was sent to the police in order to be enclosed with the case file as an integral part of the search-and-seizure record. 21. On 23 February 2005 the first applicant lodged an application with the District Court, requesting the court not to approve the searchandseizure record and arguing that a search and seizure had not been the only means by which the preservation of evidence could have been undertaken and that there had not been pressing circumstances. The first applicant also claimed that the computers contained letters as well as personal information about friends and clients. On 2 March 2005 the application was returned to the applicant as inadmissible as the search and seizure had already been approved by a court decision, which was not subject to appeal. 22. On 25 February 2005 both applicants submitted a request to the prosecutor for the return of the computers. They maintained that the computers contained private correspondence and personal information about themselves and their clients, and were also necessary for their other professional activities, namely providing typewriting services to the public. On 14 March 2005 the district prosecutor refused to return the computers. 23. The first applicant sought judicial review, arguing again that the computers contained personal information and correspondence with different State entities. In a decision of 15 April 2005 the Pazardzhik District Court upheld the prosecutor’s order. It held that the computers were the subject of an expert examination and were necessary for the investigation. It found irrelevant the assertion that the computers contained personal information. 24. In June 2005 the first applicant again sought the return of the computers. His request was rejected by the prosecutor and the court on 24 June and 15 July 2005 respectively on the grounds that the computers were necessary for the investigation. The applicant’s assertions that the computers contained personal information and were necessary for his wife’s business were not discussed. In October 2005 the applicant submitted the same request to the prosecutor, who again rejected it. The applicant submitted that the prosecutor had never forwarded his ensuing appeal against the rejection to the court. 25. On 8 November 2005 the first applicant was charged, inter alia, with the unlawful distribution of computer programs, computer games and films. In a final judgment of 22 December 2008 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the first applicant’s conviction. It held that the first applicant had lawfully acquired title to the computer games but that he had been distributing them illegally by renting the games to his clients. It also held that the first applicant had been illegally reproducing computer programs and films. The court found that the first applicant’s conduct had led to significant damage. He was sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment suspended for three years, and ordered to pay a fine in the amount of BGN 4,000. The computers were confiscated.