The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the copying of the data from a photojournalist's laptop by Russian customs officials. The Court found that customs rules on inspecting goods and other regulations had not provided any legal basis for copying electronic data in a laptop. There had been no requirement to assess whether the measure was proportionate and it had been carried out without there being a reasonable suspicion of an offence. The data had been inspected under anti-extremism legislation but the courts had made no effort to define the terms under that law or apply them to the facts. The case had highlighted deficiencies in the legal framework for such inspections. The domestic authorities, including the courts, had not had to give proper reasons for justifying the copying of the data, there had been no requirement to check whether the measure had pursued any legitimate aim in a proportionate manner and no consideration had been given to the fact that the applicant had been carrying journalistic material.