PREZHDAROVI v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 3 13. In an order of 2 February 2005 the district prosecutor noted that a complaint had been lodged by Mr V.E. alleging that a crime had been committed under Article 172a § 2 of the Criminal Code of 1968 (see paragraph 32 below). He further observed that there was insufficient information to justify the institution of criminal proceedings. Therefore, relying on section 119(1)(3) of the Judiciary Act 1994 (see paragraph 26 below), he ordered the police to conduct an inquiry into the computer club in order to collect more information as to whether a crime had been committed under Article 172a § 2 of the Criminal Code 1968. The prosecutor stated that when examining the computer club, in the event that the police officers established that software was being used illegally, they should take measures to secure the necessary evidence, including an on-the-spot inspection and search and seizure of the computers. 14. In executing the prosecutor’s order, on 14 February 2005 the police authorities drew up an action plan. A police officer with technological expertise would compare the software installed on the computers with the purchased software. In the event that discrepancies were found, the police would conduct a search and seizure. The operation was planned for 21 February 2005. 15. At approximately 3.30 p.m. on 21 February 2005 the police, including a police investigator (дознател), arrived at the computer club. The applicants claimed that at that time the computer club had been closed to the public following the order of the Ministry of Health (see paragraph 11 above). They submitted that they had been at the club with some friends and that the cash till had been on because the second applicant had just finished a typewriting job and had been paid for it. 16. The police officers noted that the computers were running and that there were people in the club. They explained the aim of the inspection. It appears that the first applicant objected to the possible search and seizure, stating that the police did not have a judicial warrant, and asked for permission to contact a lawyer. The police apparently briefly pointed to the prosecutor’s order of 2 February 2005. The first applicant was allowed to contact his lawyer but, according to the applicants’ submissions, the police refused to wait for the lawyer’s arrival. 17. The police inspected the receipts from the club’s cash till and the daily sales record and concluded that the applicants had received money that day, most probably for providing commercial services. The police then inspected the applicants’ five computers and found that a number of computer games had been installed on them. The first applicant was invited to present documents, such as purchase invoices or any other evidence of his title to the games. As he failed to do so, the police seized the computers. The search-and-seizure operation ended at 6 p.m. 18. The search-and-seizure operation was carried out in the presence of two certifying witnesses. The police drew up a report containing an