issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 171 (2017)
30.05.2017
Granting police access to computer files containing child pornography material
without prior judicial authorisation, in a non-emergency situation, violated the
owner’s right to respect for his private life
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
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 Trabajo 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 law2, 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”. The Court 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.
Principal facts
The applicant, Carlos Trabajo Rueda, is a Spanish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Seville
(Spain).
On 17 December 2007 Mr Trabajo Rueda brought his computer to a computer shop to have a
defective data recorder replaced. The technician duly replaced the part and tested it by opening a
number of files, whereupon he noticed that they contained child pornography material. On
18 December 2007 he reported the facts to the authorities and handed over the computer to the
police, who examined its content and passed it on to the police computer experts. The investigating
judge was then informed of the ongoing police inquiries.
On 20 December 2007 Mr Trabajo Rueda was arrested on his way to the computer shop to pick up
his computer. In May 2008 he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment by the Seville Audiencia
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
2. Article 18 of the Constitution, Article 282 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, section 11 (1) of Organic Law No. 2/1986 of 13 March
1986, and sections 1 and 14 of Organic Law No. 1/1992.
