4 PREZHDAROVI v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT inventory of the seized items, namely the computers and their content, which consisted of computer programs, computer games and films. The report was signed without comment by the certifying witnesses. The first applicant refused to comment on the report or to sign it. 19. On 22 February 2005 the police investigator sent a letter to the district prosecutor informing the prosecutor of the results of the operation. She noted that following the search-and-seizure operation, criminal proceedings (a police investigation) had been instituted against the first applicant for illegal reproduction and distribution of software. 20. On the same day, at the request of the police investigator, a District Court judge approved the search-and-seizure operation on the basis of Article 135 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 (“the 1974 Code”). The judge described factually the course of the search-and-seizure operation and briefly cited the text of Article 135 § 2, stressing that there had been pressing circumstances and that an immediate search and seizure had been the only means by which the collection and preservation of the necessary evidence could be undertaken. The decision was sent to the police in order to be enclosed with the case file as an integral part of the search-and-seizure record. 21. On 23 February 2005 the first applicant lodged an application with the District Court, requesting the court not to approve the search-and-seizure record and arguing that a search and seizure had not been the only means by which the preservation of evidence could have been undertaken and that there had not been pressing circumstances. The first applicant also claimed that the computers contained letters as well as personal information about friends and clients. On 2 March 2005 the application was returned to the applicant as inadmissible as the search and seizure had already been approved by a court decision, which was not subject to appeal. C. Retention of the computers 22. On 25 February 2005 both applicants submitted a request to the prosecutor for the return of the computers. They maintained that the computers contained private correspondence and personal information about themselves and their clients, and were also necessary for their other professional activities, namely providing typewriting services to the public. On 14 March 2005 the district prosecutor refused to return the computers. 23. The first applicant sought judicial review, arguing again that the computers contained personal information and correspondence with different State entities. In a decision of 15 April 2005 the Pazardzhik District Court upheld the prosecutor’s order. It held that the computers were the subject of an expert examination and were necessary for the