CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 avril 1999

.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 5 April 1999 Banco de Finanzas e Inversiones, S.A. v. Spain (dec.) - 36876/97 Decision 27.4.1999 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Search of a company's premises: inadmissible Complaints alleging tax fraud were lodged against a number of companies which had placed investments through the applicant company, FIBANC. The investigating judge ordered the institution of criminal proceedings against FIBANC and a search of all its premises; he directed that the investigation was to be confidential. According to the applicant company, the search was nonetheless carried out in the presence of various members of the press. A detailed account of the search was broadcast that same day on radio and television. The applicant company lodged appeals against the issue of the search warrant, but they were dismissed. It complained of a breach of its right to respect for its home. Inadmissible under Article 8: On the assumption that a company’s premises could be considered a “home” within the meaning of Article 8, a search of them would amount to an interference with the right guaranteed by that Article. In the instant case, the search warrant had been issued in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure in the interests of public safety and for the prevention of crime. Those were legitimate aims under Article 8. As regards the necessity of the interference, the investigating judge had had no alternative but to issue a search warrant so that evidence could be obtained of a suspected offence by the company. The investigating judge stated that he had issued the warrant because the applicant company had, after a number of demands, furnished only unreliable documents that did not enable the true position to be established. As regards the fact that within two and a half hours of its beginning the search had been reported on television, there was not even any prima facie evidence that the judicial authorities or the relevant court had been in breach of their duty to maintain confidentiality. The fact that the press had divulged information about the search could not by itself amount to a breach of the right to respect for the home: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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