NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

Article 8) has a broader connotation than the word ‘home’ 718 and may extend, for example, to a professional office. 719 In 2007, the question of the 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 . 720 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. 721 It 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…”. 722 Thus, the Court recognised the right of legal persons to respect for their correspondence. The Court also recognised the right to the ‘home’ of Article 34 NGOs. In many cases, it is difficult to distinguish between the respect for the ‘home’ and correspondence of legal persons . Karen Reid says that the concepts of ‘home’ and ‘private life’ may overlap with business and professional activities. 723 For that reason, the author decided not to divide the case-law into two separate groups, and instead to contend with the rights to ‘home’ and correspondence together. The following parts will attend to different sub-aspects of these two rights. 2.4.2.1 Search and seizure of data The most widespread issue invoked by legal entities under Article 8 is unlawful search and seizure. This subject relates to both the right to respect for ‘home’ and for correspondence. In the case of Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others v. Norway, 724 the applicants were three Norwegian companies that shared a common server containing common information on technology systems. The regional tax authorities requested one of the applicant companies, Bernh Larsen Holding (‘B.L.H’.’), to allow tax auditors to make a copy of all the data on the server. B.L.H. did not agree and instituted proceedings against the tax authority. However, all the domestic courts upheld the decision in accordance with which it was obliged to give the authorities access to the server. The applicant companies alleged before the Court that by taking the backup copy of the server, the tax authorities had obtained great quantities of personal data, which did not contain information of significance for tax assessment purposes. This complaint 718 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. 719 REID, 2012, cited above, p. 531. 720 Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria , no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007. 721 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. 722 Association for European Integration , cited above, § 60. 723 REID, 2012, cited above, p. 531. 724 Bernh Larsen Holding AS , cited above.

131