CYIL 2014

DO LEGAL PERSONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE? of Chappell v. the United Kingdom 19 the Court considered that a search conducted at a private individual’s home which was also the registered office of a company run by him had amounted to interference with his right to respect for his home within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. 20 This practice stemmed partly from the fact that the word “ domicile ” (in the French version of Article 8) has a broader connotation than the word “home” 21 and may extend, for example, to a professional office. 22 In 2007, the question of applicability of the rights envisaged by Article 8 was again decided by the Court in its judgment in the case of Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria . 23 In this case, the Bulgarian government submitted that legal persons could not invoke the protection of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court, however, did not agree. 24 It has never dealt with the term „family life“ in cases concerning legal entities: it is quite obvious that this notion cannot be applied to them. As to the notion of “ private life ” in the sense of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court observed: „While it may be open to doubt whether, being such a person, it can have a “private life” within the meaning of that provision, it can be said that its mail and other communications... are covered by the notion of “ correspondence ” which applies equally to communications originating from private and business premises… “ 25 Thus, the Court recognised the right of legal persons to respect for their correspondence. There can be disputes as to the extent of the rights of legal persons under Article 8 of the Convention. Nevertheless, one point which is clear and is of importance for the Court is that the rights in issue must belong to the applicant legal entity, not to its members. There has to be a sufficiently direct link between the legal person as such and the alleged breaches of the Convention . 26 On the other hand, each rule has exceptions which confirm it. In the recent case of Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania 27 the Court has recognised a victim status of a legal entity under Article 34 of the Convention, though it has not demonstrated a 19 Chappell v. the United Kingdom , 30 March 1989, § 26, Series A no. 152-A. 20 DE SCHUTTER, O. L’accès des personnes morales à la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme. In: Avancées et confins actuels des droits de l’homme aux niveaux international, européen et national : mélanges offerts à Silvio Marcus Helmons . Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2003, p. 98. 21 KILKELLY, U. The right to respekt for private and family life. A guide to the implementation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe human rights handbooks. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2003, p. 19. 22 REID, K. A practitioner’s guide to the European Convention on Human Rights , 4th ed., London: Thomson/Sweet & Maxwell, 2012, p. 531. 23 Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria , no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007. 24 Société Colas Est and Others v. France , no. 37971/97, § 41, ECHR 2002III. 25 Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria , no. 62540/00, § 60, 28 June 2007. 26 A contrario, Herbecq and Association “Ligue des droits de l’homme” v. Belgium (dec.), nos. 32200/96 and 32201/96, Commission decision of 14 January 1998, DR 92A, p. 92. 27 Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 113, 17 July 2014.

295