6 PREZHDAROVI v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT premises contained objects or documents which might be relevant to the criminal investigation, the investigative authorities could carry out a search-and-seizure operation there. Under Article 135 § 1 of the 1974 Code, during the preliminary investigation a search-and-seizure operation could only be carried out pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge of the competent first-instance court. The warrant was to be issued in ex parte proceedings, without notification of or participation by the individuals concerned. An exception to the warrant requirement was only possible in pressing circumstances, in which case a record of the search had to be produced for approval before a judge within twenty-four hours (Article 135 § 2 of the 1974 Code). If search and seizure concerned computer systems and programs, it had to be carried out in the presence of a person with technical expertise (Article 136 § 5 of the 1974 Code). The authorities could not undertake measures that went beyond the aim of the search-and-seizure operation (Article 137 § 4 of the 1974 Code). The seizure of computer information was its recording on paper or by other means (Article 137 § 7 of the 1974 Code). Similar provisions are contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 2005 (Articles 159-163). 28. Article 191 § 1 of the 1974 Code provided that in certain cases envisaged by the law, the police could conduct an immediate search-and-seizure operation if that would be the only possibility of collecting and securing evidence. In this case, the relevant prosecutor was required to be informed within twenty-four hours. Criminal proceedings were considered as instituted following the drawing up of the search record (Article 191 § 2 of the 1974 Code). Similar provisions are contained in the Judiciary Act 2007 (section 145) and the Code of Criminal Procedure 2005 (Article 212 § 2). B. Retention of physical evidence during criminal proceedings 29. Pursuant to the relevant provisions as in force at the material time, physical evidence was kept by the authorities for the duration of the criminal proceedings (Article 108 § 1 of the 1974 Code). Chattels collected as physical evidence could be returned to their owners before the termination of criminal proceedings on condition that their return would not hinder the establishment of the facts in the case. A request for their return was to be submitted to the prosecutor. In the event that the prosecutor refused to return them, the owner had a right to appeal before the court, which then examined the issue in camera (Article 108 § 2 and § 4 of the 1974 Code). The 2005 Code of Criminal Procedure contains almost identical provisions (Article 111 §§ 1-4).