Search of an attorney’s office in practice

Poklic odvetnika v vsaki pravni in demokratični družbi predstavlja pomembno vlogo, saj v okviru svojega dela strankam zagotavlja ustrezno pravno pomoč, ki jo potrebujejo. Za učinkovito nudenje pravne pomoči s stranko oblikuje posebno zaupno razmerje, v okviru katerega stranka z njim deli številne zaupne informacije, ki lahko izvirajo tudi z njenega najintimnejšega področja zasebnosti. Odvetnika pri tem zavezuje dolžnost, da kot zaupno varuje vse, kar mu je stranka zaupala. Kadar organi kazenskega postopka opravljajo preiskavo odvetniške pisarne, se tako pojavi nevarnost, da bi lahko prišlo do nedopustnega posega v odvetniško zasebnost in s tem do neupravičenega razkritja zaupnih podatkov. Zaradi tega je treba že na abstraktni ravni zagotoviti ustrezne mehanizme, s katerimi se lahko preprečijo nedopustni posegi v odvetniško zasebnost v praksi. Neustrezna pravna ureditev hišne preiskave odvetniške pisarne je bila v preteklosti predmet številnih razprav, tako med pravnimi strokovnjaki kot tudi v sodni praksi slovenskih sodišč in praksi Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice. Ključno spremembo na tem področju je prinesla odločba Ustavnega sodišča Republike Slovenije št. U-I-115/14, Up-218/14, s katero je sodišče ugotovilo protiustavnost določb takrat veljavnega Zakona o kazenskem postopku (ZKP). Zakonodajalec je sledil stališčem Ustavnega sodišča in z novelo ZKP-N ustrezno uredil opravljanje preiskovalnih dejanj pri odvetnikih in s tem poskušal zagotoviti ustrezno varstvo odvetniške zasebnosti tudi na zakonski ravni.The attorney-at-law profession plays an important role in any legal and democratic society, providing clients with appropriate legal assistance they need. To provide effective legal assistance, the attorney forms a special confidential relationship with the client, in which the client shares with him or her a wide range of confidential information, which may even derive from his or her most intimate sphere of privacy. An attorney is bound by a duty to keep everything that is entrusted to him by his client as confidential. When law enforcement authorities search an attorney’s office, there is a risk that the attorney\u27s privacy may be invaded and that confidential information may be disclosed unwarranted. For this reason, it is necessary to ensure that appropriate mechanisms are in place at an abstract level to prevent impermissible interference with attorneys\u27 privacy privilege in practice. The legal regulation of search of attorney’s office has been the subject of discussions in the past, among legal experts as well as in the case-law of Slovenian courts and case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. A key change in the Slovene regulations was brought about by the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia No. U-I-115/14, Up-218/14, in which the Court found provisions of the then applicable Criminal Procedure Act (CPC) unconstitutional. The legislator followed the views of the Constitutional Court and adopted the amendment N of the CPC, by which the performance of investigative acts at law firms was adequately regulated, thereby attempting to ensure adequate protection of attorneys\u27 privacy at the statutory level