5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Athens. 6.  The applicant is a businessman and chairman of a public limited company. 7.  On 23 September 2010 the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of Appeal ordered the Attica Police Department to carry out searches at fifteen residential and business premises in various locations in Athens and the Attica region, including the applicant’s address, in the context of a preliminary police investigation being conducted in respect of S.G. and I.G. and other unnamed persons. The applicant was not referred to by name as being suspected of involvement in the offences in question. The prosecutor’s warrant was worded as follows:
“On the basis of decision no. 2940/29-7-2010 of the prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, we are conducting an investigation to verify whether criminal offences have been committed, in particular the setting up of a criminal organisation (Article 187 of the Criminal Code) by S.G. and I.G., and by other persons connected with them and acting in collaboration with them.
In view of the material gathered to date and in order to avoid the loss of decisive evidence, we hereby order searches, in application of Articles 253-259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the residential and professional premises located in the following streets:
28-30 rue Meletopoulou, Palaio Psychiko;
...
In addition, should you consider it necessary, carry out body searches of the persons present in these homes and offices.
In any event, seize any object or document found therein which, in your opinion, has a link with the case under consideration, and draw up the relevant reports for submission to us as rapidly as possible ...” 8.  On 24 September 2010 a police officer, accompanied by a deputy prosecutor, went to the applicant’s home. Since the applicant was not at home the police officer and the prosecutor contacted a locksmith, who opened the entrance door. In the presence of a witness (a neighbour, a national of the Netherlands), they conducted a search and seized numerous items (two computers and hundreds of documents). The search lasted for twelve and a half hours. A 41-page list of items and documents was drawn up. 9.  In May 2012, on completion of the preliminary police investigation, the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of Appeal instituted proceedings against a number of individuals, including the applicant, for involvement in a criminal organisation. 10.  On 8 November 2012 the applicant applied to the Indictment Division at the Athens Court of Appeal to have the search declared null and void, the seizure order lifted and the seized items returned. 11.  On 13 February 2013 the indictment division dismissed his application. The main issue examined by it was whether a search and seizure operation could be carried out in the course of a preliminary police investigation. 12.  It noted that the preliminary police investigation (προκαταρκτική εξέταση) and the subsequent pre-trial investigation (προανάκριση) pursued a common goal, that of establishing the truth. The only difference between them was that the second procedure concerned an “accused”, while the first procedure concerned a “suspect”, who, in the indictment division’s finding, nonetheless enjoyed all the rights granted to an accused. It held that this difference was not such as to deprive the bodies responsible for investigating a case of an important tool for uncovering decisive items of evidence, otherwise there would be a serious risk of a finding that there was no case to answer without the authorities having been able to exhaust all the investigatory options available to them. Referring to a legal opinion by Professors D. Tsatsos, A. Papadima and K. Chrysogonos (published in the Poiniki Dikaiosyni magazine, no. 7/2003, pp. 813 et seq.), the indictment division held that the preliminary police investigation was judicial and not administrative in nature and that it was one stage in the criminal procedure. The indictment division further noted that the preliminary police investigation was conducted in accordance with the procedure for a pre-trial investigation, a specific reference being made to Articles 240 and 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). In the indictment division’s view, this meant that in deciding whether to bring a prosecution the public prosecutor’s office had to use all the means at its disposal to gather evidence, in line with Article 178 of the CCP and the procedure applicable to the pre-trial investigation, with the exception of evidence that was incompatible with the nature of a preliminary police investigation (such as, for example, the memorandum of defence as a suspect and issuing an arrest warrant). 13.  The indictment division held that Article 256 of the CCP, providing for the right of the occupant of premises being searched to be present, did not impose an obligation on the person conducting the search to await the occupant or invite him or her to be present, and that, should the occupant be absent, the presence of a neighbour was sufficient. 14.  With regard to the authorities’ refusal to return the seized objects, the indictment division noted that a considerable amount of evidence had been seized during the searches of the applicant’s home and also at the residential premises of the other individuals concerned, and that this evidence provided sufficient proof of the existence of a criminal organisation involving persons who had committed serious offences, most of them crimes, in respect of which prosecutions had been brought. It pointed out that any subsequent proceedings would have been impossible if this evidence had not been gathered, and that, given that these items were particularly decisive and crucial for the investigation of the case, they ought to remain in the case file. 15.  On 12 March 2013 the applicant invited the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation to lodge an appeal against the indictment division’s decision. On 13 March 2013 the prosecutor dismissed that request. He held that the conditions for lodging an appeal on points of law had not been met, in that the indictment division had provided comprehensive reasoning for the contested decision and that, since no further investigative acts had been conducted, no decision by the indictment division at the court of appeal was necessary in order to approve them.
II.