PREZHDAROVI v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 5 investigation. It found irrelevant the assertion that the computers contained personal information. 24. In June 2005 the first applicant again sought the return of the computers. His request was rejected by the prosecutor and the court on 24 June and 15 July 2005 respectively on the grounds that the computers were necessary for the investigation. The applicant’s assertions that the computers contained personal information and were necessary for his wife’s business were not discussed. In October 2005 the applicant submitted the same request to the prosecutor, who again rejected it. The applicant submitted that the prosecutor had never forwarded his ensuing appeal against the rejection to the court. D. The criminal proceedings against the first applicant 25. On 8 November 2005 the first applicant was charged, inter alia, with the unlawful distribution of computer programs, computer games and films. In a final judgment of 22 December 2008 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the first applicant’s conviction. It held that the first applicant had lawfully acquired title to the computer games but that he had been distributing them illegally by renting the games to his clients. It also held that the first applicant had been illegally reproducing computer programs and films. The court found that the first applicant’s conduct had led to significant damage. He was sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment suspended for three years, and ordered to pay a fine in the amount of BGN 4,000. The computers were confiscated. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A. Search and seizure 26. At the relevant time, if there was some information that a crime had been committed but insufficient evidence to initiate a preliminary investigation, a prosecutor could conduct an inquiry and order the police to undertake certain measures, such as to request documents or objects from individuals or State entities (section 119(1)(3) of the Judiciary Act 1994). The inquiry was not part of the criminal proceedings and its aim was to find sufficient information that a crime had been committed (sections 26-31 of Instruction No. 1 of 22 March 2004 about the work of and cooperation between the investigative authorities). 27. As for search and seizure within the framework of a preliminary investigation (as part of criminal proceedings), at the relevant time Article 134 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 (“the 1974 Code”) provided that if there were sufficient grounds to believe that certain