and subsequently in the flat on Kuybyshev Street where the applicant had a registered office. The Court has consistently interpreted the notion of "home" in Article 8 § 1 as covering both private individuals' homes and professional persons' offices (see Buck v. Germany, No. 41604/98, § 31, ECHR 2005-IV, and Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A No. 251-B, pp. 33 - 34, §§ 29 - 31). It follows that in the present case both searches amounted to an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his home.
30. The Court has next to determine whether the interference was justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8, that is, whether it was "in accordance with the law", pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in that paragraph and was "necessary in a democratic society" to achieve that aim or those aims. Given that the searches were authorised by the judicial decisions as required by Article 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and purported to uncover evidence in a fraud case, the Court is prepared to accept that they were lawful in domestic terms and pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of crime. What remains to be examined is whether they were "necessary in a democratic society".
31. The Court has repeatedly held that persecution and harassment of members of the legal profession strikes at the very heart of the Convention system. Therefore the searching of lawyers' premises should be subject to especially strict scrutiny (see Elci and Others v. Turkey, Nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, § 669, 13 November 2003). To determine whether these measures were "necessary in a democratic society", the Court has to explore the availability of effective safeguards against abuse or arbitrariness under domestic law and to check how those safeguards operated in the specific case under examination. Elements taken into consideration in this regard are the severity of the offence in connection with which the search and seizure have been effected, whether they were carried out pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge or a judicial officer - or subjected to after-the-fact judicial scrutiny -, whether the warrant was based on reasonable suspicion and whether its scope was reasonably limited. The Court must also review the manner in which the search was executed, and - where a lawyer's office is concerned - whether it was carried out in the presence of an independent observer to ensure that material subject to legal professional privilege is not removed. The Court must finally take into account the extent of the possible repercussions on the work and the reputation of the persons affected by the search (see Camenzind v. Switzerland, 16 December 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII; Buck, cited above, § 45; Smirnov v. Russia, No. 71362/01, § 44, ECHR 2007-...; and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, No. 74336/01, § 57, ECHR 2007-...).
32. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the search warrants of 12 February 2004 were issued by the District Court on an application by the investigator. It follows from the text of the search warrants that the only piece of evidence submitted by the investigator in support of his application was the report by an expert who had been commissioned to compare the documents prepared by Mr S. and by the applicant with a view to determining whether they could have been prepared on the same printing device. The report indicated that no reliable finding could be drawn because the documents lacked any distinctive marks which could have permitted identification of the printing device (see paragraph 8 above). In his application, the investigator did not explain how the seizure of the printing device from the applicant's home or office could have furthered the investigation in the absence of any distinctive marks on the documents capable of ensuring identification of the specific device. Th
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 13 ... 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
