ECtHR: Kulák v. Slovakia (Application no. 57748/21, 3 April 2025)
Exposing Structural Flaws in the Slovak Code of Criminal Procedure on Legal Professional Privilege
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46282/blr.2025.9.1.1020Keywords:
Article 8 ECHR, Private Life, Search of Law Firm, Seizure of Computer Data, Professional Privilege, Ex Post Factum Judicial Review, Digital EvidenceAbstract
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgment in Kulák v. Slovakia addresses critical deficiencies in the Slovak criminal procedure, namely the protection of legal professional privilege during searches and seizures of electronic data. The case arose from a 2020 warrantless search of a lawyer’s office, where authorities seized the applicant’s entire work computer under an emergency provision. The ECtHR ruled that Slovakia’s reliance on prosecutorial oversight – rather than independent judicial review –failed to meet standards under Article 8 ECHR. This commentary begins by examining the factual background of the case and legal findings of the ECtHR. Subsequently, it evaluates the broader impact of the Kulák judgment and identifies remaining gaps and potential implications for other Council of Europe member states, advocating for independent oversight, and timely judicial remedies to uphold the rule of law.
References
Amnesty International. (2024). Amnesty International Report 2024: The State of the World’s Human Rights. Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol10/7200/2024/en/ (accessed on 20.04.2025).
ECHR KS. (2024). The rights of lawyers in the Court’s case law. Available at: https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/the-rights-of-lawyers-in-the-court_s-case-law (accessed on 20.04.2025).
ECHR KS. (2024). Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Available at: https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_8_eng (accessed on 20.04.2025).
European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer Explanatory Report, CM(2024)191-add2final, 12 March 2025.
Franssen, V. and Tosza, S. (Eds.) (2025). The Cambridge Handbook of Digital Evidence in Criminal Investigations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049771 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049771
Máčaj, A. (2023). Slovakia Before the European Court of Human Rights in Recent Years–an Upcoming Fair Trial Problem?. Slovak Yearbook of European Union Law, 3, 23-34, https://doi.org/10.54869/syeul.2023.3.818 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54869/syeul.2023.3.818
Schaunig, G. (2025). House Searches and Seizures in Criminal Proceedings: The Perspective of an Effective Protection of Fundamental Rights with a Focus on Mobile Devices and Data. University of Vienna Law Review, 9(1), 20-54, https://doi.org/10.25365/vlr-2025-9-1-20
Slovak National Centre for Human Rights. (2023). Individual submission – SNCHR UPR 4th cycle. Available at: https://www.snslp.sk/wp‐content/uploads/Individual‐submission‐SNCHR_UPR‐4th‐cycle.pdf (accessed on 20.04.2025).
Statista. (2023). Volume of data/information created, captured, copied, and consumed worldwide from 2010 to 2023, with forecasts from 2024 to 2028. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/871513/worldwide-data-created/ (accessed on 21.01.2024).
U.S. Department of State. (2023). 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Slovakia. Available at: https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/slovakia/ (accessed on 20.04.2025).
United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. (1990). Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
Winter, L. B. and Thaman, S. C. (2020). A Comparative View of the Right to Counsel and the Protection of Attorney Client Communications. In: Winter, L. B., Thaman, S. C., and Lynn, V. (Eds.), The Right to Counsel and the Protection of Attorney Client Privilege in Criminal Proceedings: A Comparative View. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43123-5_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43123-5_2
CCPR, Antonius Cornelis Van Hulst v. Netherlands, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/82/D/903/1999, 15 November 2004.
CCPR, Concluding Observations: Portugal, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/78/PRT, 17 August 2003.
CJEU, Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others v Vlaamse Regering, C-694/20, 8 December 2022, ECLI:EU:C:2022:963.
ECtHR, Agora and Others v. Russia, app. no. 28539/10, 13 October 2022.
ECtHR, Altay v. Turkey (No. 2), app. no. 11236/09, 9 April 2019.
ECtHR, Avanesyan v. Russia, app. no. 41152/06, 18 September 2014.
ECtHR, BENet Praha, spol. s r.o. v. the Czech Republic, app. nos. 33908/04, 7937/05, 25249/05, 29402/05 and 33571/06, 24 February 2011.
ECtHR, Brazzi v. Italy, app. no. 57278/11, 27 September 2018.
ECtHR, Buck v. Germany, app. no. 41604/98, 28 April 2005
ECtHR, Copland v. the United Kingdom, app. no. 62617/00, 3 April 2007.
ECtHR, DELTA PEKÁRNY A.S. v. the Czech Republic, app. no. 97/11, 2 October 2014.
ECtHR, Grande Oriente d’Italia v. Italy, app. no. 29550/17, 19 December 2024.
ECtHR, Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, app. no. 34529/10, 15 October 2013.
ECtHR, Hambardzumyan v. Armenia, app. no. 43478/11, 5 December 2019.
ECtHR, Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria, app. no. 65755/01, 22 May 2008.
ECtHR, Kaliňák and Fico (dec.), app. nos. 40734/22, 40803/22, 28 February 2023.
ECtHR, Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, app. no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011.
ECtHR, Kirdök and Others v. Turkey, app. no. 14704/12, 3 December 2019.
ECtHR, Kruglov and Others v. Russia, app. nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, 4 February 2020.
ECtHR, Kulák v. Slovakia, app. no. 57748/21, 3 April 2025.
ECtHR, Močuļskis v. Latvia, app. no. 71064/12, 17 December 2020.
ECtHR, Niemietz v. Germany, app. no. 13710/88, 16 December 1992.
ECtHR, Pendov v. Bulgaria, app. no. 44229/11, 26 March 2020.
ECtHR, Petri Sallinen and Others v. Finland, app. no. 50882/99, 27 September 2005.
ECtHR, Plechlo v. Slovakia, app. no. 18593/19, 26 October 2023.
ECtHR, Potoczká and Adamčo v. Slovakia, app. no. 7286/16, 12 January 2023.
ECtHR, Reznik v. Ukraine, app. no. 31175/14, 23 January 2025.
ECtHR, Saber v. Norway, app. no. 459/18, 17 December 2020.
ECtHR, Särgava v. Estonia, app. no. 698/19, 16 November 2021.
ECtHR, Smirnov v. Russia, app. no. 71362/01, 7 June 2007
ECtHR, Vinci Construction and GTM Génie Civil et Services v. France, app. nos. 63629/10 and 60567/10, 2 April 2015.
ECtHR, Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, app. no. 74336/01, 16 October 2007.
ECtHR, Wolland v. Norway, app. no. 39731/12, 17 May 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/ijmu.v12i2.6
SCC, I. ÚS 226/2021-26, 25 May 2021.
SCC, IV. ÚS 565/2021-17, 9 November 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4183/aeb.2021.565
U.S. Supreme Court, Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981).
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Bratislava Law Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Author(s) transfers copyright to the Article to the Publisher of the Journal by the Licence Agreement.
The Author(s) retains rights specified in the Licence Agreement.
The readers may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of all of the Article of the Journal and use them for any other lawful purpose under specified Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
How to Cite
