CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mai 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 May 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 4088/21 Sanel NEZIRIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 10 December 2020 communicated on 4 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a lawyer. He complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the seizure and examination of his mobile telephone in the context of a criminal investigation against him and, in particular, that the domestic law lacks appropriate procedural safeguards in order to protect data covered by legal professional privilege. On 15 July 2020 the Constitutional Court held that the impugned measure was in accordance with the formal requirements of the domestic law, that it pursued a legitimate aim and that it was “necessary in a democratic society” for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention ( Robathin v. Austria , no.   30457/06, 3 July 2012; Sérvulo & Associados - Sociedade de Advogados, RL and Others v. Portugal , no. 27013/10, 3 September 2015; Saber v.   Norway , no. 459/18, 17 December 2020; and Särgava v. Estonia , no.   698/19, 16 November 2021)?