CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 octobre 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 } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 11 October 1999 Lehtinen v. Finland (dec.) - 39076/97 Decision 14.10.1999 [Section IV] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Petition to Ombudsman not considered as a domestic remedy to be exhausted The police carried out a search in the premises of the applicant’s limited liability company and his home on suspicion of aggravated fraud and a book-keeping offence. The applicant lodged a petition with the Ombudsman, complaining about the manner in which the search had taken place and claiming that most of the documents seized were outside the scope of the search warrant. He was eventually acquitted of the charges held against him. The Ombudsman found that the petition did not call for any further developments. The applicant has neither challenged the seizure before the domestic courts nor instituted proceedings for damages. Inadmissible under Article 8: As a rule, a petition to the Ombudsman cannot be considered as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1. In the instant case, the applicant’s main concern was that the search had gone beyond the terms of the requisite warrant since the major part of the documents seized did not concern the company or the period under investigation. However, the applicant had at his disposal a remedy whereby he could have obtained a court review of the necessity of the seizure. Had the court found that there were no grounds justifying the seizure, it would have quashed it, which the Ombudsman in any case could not have done. Moreover, pursuant to domestic law, the first instance courts have to examine petitions relating to seizures speedily. Finally, there were no specific reasons absolving the applicant from exhausting the court remedy provided in domestic law.   © 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