CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 décembre 1997

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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. December 1997 Camenzind v. Switzerland - 21353/93 Judgment 16.12.1997 Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Search of residential premises carried out in connection with administrative criminal law proceedings: no 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 A.   Whether there was an interference Interference with applicant’s right to respect for his home. B.   Whether the interference was justified Interference “in accordance with the law” and pursued aim consistent with Convention: “prevention of disorder or crime”. Notion of “necessity” implies that interference corresponds to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued – Court took into account margin of appreciation left to Contracting States. Contracting States may consider it necessary to resort to measures such as searches of residential premises and seizures in order to obtain physical evidence of certain offences. Court will assess whether reasons adduced to justify such measures were relevant and sufficient and whether proportionality principle has been adhered to. With regard to latter point, Court ensures that relevant legislation and practice afford individuals adequate and effective safeguards against abuse; it must be particularly vigilant where authorities are empowered under national law to order and effect searches without a judicial warrant. Court must also consider particular circumstances of each case in order to determine whether, in the concrete case, the interference in question was proportionate to the aim pursued. In case before it, Swiss federal legislation provided safeguards and, more particularly, search had been of very limited scope. Conclusion : no violation (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 8 A.   Government’s preliminary objection Government submitted that complaint under Article 13 had not been expressly raised in the application. Convention institutions have jurisdiction to review circumstances complained of by an applicant in light of all requirements of Convention and wide discretion in determining characterisation to be given in law to facts. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of complaint Federal Administrative Criminal Law Act provided a special remedy in form of a complaint to Indictment Division of Federal Court in respect of coercive measures. In case before Court, however, complaint had been dismissed pursuant to Indictment Division’s settled case-law whereby only persons still affected, at least in part, by an impugned decision had locus standi; remedy therefore could not be termed “effective”. Other procedures relied on by Government not shown to be effective. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: Judgment constituted sufficient just satisfaction. B.   Costs and expenses: Sum awarded on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sum for costs and expenses (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