67. The applicant moreover complained that it had not been possible for his lawyer to listen to and read the entirety of the telecommunication‑surveillance data, due to the time constraints and its significant volume. The Government were of the opinion that it had not been necessary to allow for the possibility to listen to each and every recording and read each and every text message. The Court is indeed satisfied that, in view of the complexity of the criminal proceedings at issue (see Gregačević v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 53, 10 July 2012), it was not necessary to allow for the opportunity that the applicant’s lawyer read through and listen to each and every single item of the telecommunication‑surveillance data. Rather, it was, in principle, sufficient to allow an effective opportunity for the applicant’s lawyer to analyse the recordings and text messages in order to identify and then listen or read those which he considered to be of relevance. In this connection, the Court is mindful of the fact that modern investigation means may indeed produce, as in the present case, enormous amounts of data, the integration of which into the criminal proceedings should not cause unnecessary delays to those proceedings. It therefore considers that the applicant’s right to disclosure must not be confused with his right of access to all material already considered as relevant by the authorities, which will generally require for the possibility to comprehend the material in its entirety (see, as an exception, Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev, cited above, §§ 581-85).
69. In view of this, the Court finds that in the circumstances of the case the applicant had sufficient time to acquaint himself with the telecommunication-surveillance data.
Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului
(Hotărârea din data de 25 iulie 2019, Rook împotriva Germaniei, cererea nr. 1586/15, CE:ECHR:2019:0725JUD000158615, disponibilă aici)