CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 juin 2001

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 31 June 2001 Société Colas Est and Others v. France (dec.) - 37971/97 Decision 19.6.2001 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Seizure of documents at company offices by competition inspectors without prior authorisation by a court or control of the operation: admissible In the course of an investigation into local tendering procedures for public-roadworks contractors, inspectors from the Directorate General for Competition and Consumer Affairs twice visited the head offices of various companies in November 1985 and September 1986 and seized thousands of documents. They were acting in accordance with the provisions of the order of 30   June 1945, which did not require them to obtain a court order. In the light of their findings, proceedings were brought against a number of companies, including the applicant companies. In a decision of 25 October 1989 the Competition Commission ordered the applicant companies to pay fines of twelve million, four million and six million French francs respectively. Those penalties were upheld by the Paris Court of Appeal. However, its judgment was quashed and the case was remitted to the Court of Appeal with a differently constituted bench. In that court the applicant companies, relying on Article 8 of the Convention, disputed the lawfulness of the seizures, which had been carried out by the inspectors without a court order (and thus without judicial supervision of the visit or the seizures). The Court of Appeal found against them, holding that while the inspectors had a general right to inspect documents and were authorised to seize them, no searches had been carried out during the administrative investigation; accordingly, the companies’ allegations of an infringement of their right to respect for their private lives and home were unfounded. However, the fines imposed on the first two applicant companies were reduced. The Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant companies, noting in particular that the administrative investigation had not entailed any searches or coercive measures. Admissible under Article 8. (N.B. This application raises an issue on which no ruling has yet been given, namely whether the concept of “home” for the purposes of Article 8 extends to the premises (head offices) of companies or other juristic persons.)   © 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