Strasbourg: Man whose laptop was seized without judicial authorisation suffered article 8 violation
Reading time: 2 minutes
In its Chamber judgment in the case of Trabajo Rueda v Spain the European Court of Human Rights held, by six votes to one, that there had been: a violation of article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
About this case:
- Judgment:
The case concerned the seizure of Mr Trabajo Rueda’s computer on the grounds that it contained child pornography material.
The court held that the police access to files in Mr Rueda’s personal computer and his conviction amounted to an interference with his right to respect for his private life.
It noted that that interference was prescribed by law, combined with the case-law of the Constitutional Court establishing the rule that prior judicial authorisation was required where an individual’s private life was likely to be infringed, except in emergency situations, in which case subsequent judicial scrutiny was possible.
However, the court deemed that the police seizure of the computer and inspection of the files which it contained, without prior judicial authorisation, had not been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued (“prevention of crime” and “protection of the rights of others”) and had not been “necessary in a democratic society”.
It held that it was difficult to assess the urgency of the situation requiring the police to seize the files from Mr Trabajo Rueda’s personal computer and to access their content, bypassing the normal requirement of prior judicial authorisation, when in fact the computer in question was already in the hands of the police and prior authorisation could have been obtained fairly quickly without impeding the police inquiries.
The court held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Rueda.
Share this article:
Subscribe to our newsletter to not miss articles like this one:
SUBSCRIBE
