CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 février 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 105 February 2008 Ravon and Others v. France - 18497/03 Judgment 21.2.2008 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Civil rights and obligations Dispute concerning validity of search and seizure operations carried out by tax authorities: Article 6 applicable Access to “court” to challenge validity of orders authorising search and seizure operations in the applicant’s home by the tax authorities: violation   Facts : The tax authorities, suspecting the applicant companies of tax fraud, carried out searches and seized documents at the companies’ premises and at the first applicant’s home, on the basis of court orders. The applicants applied unsuccessfully to have all the operations in question declared void. Law : Applicability : Article 6 § 1 applied under its civil head to the dispute concerning the lawfulness of the searches of residential premises and seizures to which the applicants had been subjected: the core issue was whether or not the authorities had breached the applicants’ right to respect for their home. The “civil” nature of that right was clear, as was its recognition in domestic law, both under Article 9 of the Civil Code and by virtue of the fact that it was enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention, which was directly applicable in the French legal system. Merits : The applicants complained that they had not had access to an effective remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of the searches and seizures to which they had been subjected under Article L.16 B of the Code of Tax Procedure. Under that Article, orders authorising searches of residential premises were amenable only to an appeal on points of law. The Court considered that, on its own, the possibility of appealing on points of law – of which the applicants had, moreover, availed themselves – did not satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1, since an appeal of that kind to the Court of Cassation, which examined only questions of law, did not allow examination of the facts on which the disputed authorisations had been based. The fact that authorisations to carry out searches of residential premises were issued by a judge – so that, at first glance, a review by the courts encompassing examination of the facts was incorporated in the decision-making process itself – was not sufficient to remedy that deficiency. The person who was to be the subject of the search – who was unaware at that stage that proceedings had been instituted against him or her – did not have an opportunity of being heard. The Court emphasised a number of further factors. The officials conducting the search were under no legal obligation to inform the persons concerned of their right to raise any problems with the judge, who was not obliged to make reference in the authorisation order to the possibility of making an application to the court to have the search suspended or terminated, or to the arrangements for so doing. The presence of the persons concerned was not required and the law made no provision for them to be assisted by a lawyer or to have outside contact. Once the operation had been completed, the persons concerned no longer had the option of applying to the judge who had authorised it. In the end, the Court considered that the applicants had not had access to a “tribunal” in order to obtain a decision in the dispute concerning them following proceedings that satisfied the requirements of Article 6 § 1. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 5,000 to the first applicant for non-pecuniary damage; finding of a violation sufficient for the applicant companies.   © 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