10 PREZHDAROVI v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 2. The Court’s assessment a) Whether there was an interference 41. It has not been disputed between the parties that the search of the computer club and the seizure and retention of the computers allegedly containing personal information amounted to interference with the first applicant’s right to respect for his “private life” (see Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 48, Series A no. 256-A; Crémieux v. France, 25 February 1993, § 31, Series A no. 256-B; and Miailhe v. France (no. 1), 25 February 1993, § 28, Series A no. 256-C). The Court further notes that the second applicant worked at the club: assisting the first applicant, replacing him when he was absent and also providing typewriting services to the public through the use of the computers in the club. Those factual submissions by the applicants were not contested by the Government. Therefore the Court accepts that the second applicant could also claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 8, and the Government’s objection in this respect must be rejected. 42. The Court must therefore examine whether the interference with the applicants’ rights was in conformity with the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 8, in other words whether it was “in accordance with the law”, pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in that paragraph and was “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve the aim or aims in question. b) Whether the interference was justified 43. The Court notes that the expression “in accordance with the law”, within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law. Second, the domestic law must be accessible to the person concerned. Third, the person affected must be able, if need be with appropriate legal advice, to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him, and fourth, the domestic law must be compatible with the rule of law (see, among many other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008; and Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, § 76, 27 September 2005). 44. In the present case, assuming that the actions of the police at the applicants’ computer club on 21 February 2005 had some basis in domestic law because Article 191 § 1 of the 1974 Code provided that in certain circumstances the police could conduct search-and-seizure operations (see paragraph 28 above), the Court must examine whether that law was “compatible with the rule of law”. In the context of search and seizure, the domestic law must provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrary interference with Article 8 rights (see Camenzind v. Switzerland,