Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
December 1992
Niemietz v. Germany - 13710/88
Judgment 16.12.1992
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for correspondence
Respect for home
Search of a lawyer's office in course of criminal proceedings against a third party: violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
I.ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
1.Search constituted interference with applicant's rights under Article 8:
(a)right to respect for private life comprises right to develop relationships with others - exclusion of professional or business activities from notion of "private life" not warranted by any reason of principle and could lead to inequality of treatment under Article 8;
(b)French text of that provision permits inclusion of business premises within the word "home" ("domicile"), a narrow interpretation whereof could give rise to same risk of inequality;
(c)interpreting "private life" and "home" as including certain professional or business activities or premises is consonant with object and purpose of Article 8 and would not unduly hamper the Contracting States;
(d) in addition, search operations must in the circumstances have covered "correspondence" within the meaning of that provision.
2.Interference was "in accordance with the law" and had legitimate aims, but was not "necessary in a democratic society"; in particular, search impinged on professional secrecy to an extent that was disproportionate in the circumstances.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
Search alleged to have violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by impairing applicant's reputation.
Conclusion: no separate issue arises under this provision (unanimously).
III.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
1.Pecuniary damage: not established.
2.Non-pecuniary damage (if any): finding of violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.
3.Costs and expenses: particulars of that expenditure not supplied.
Conclusion: compensation claim dismissed (unanimously).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy