NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

be regarded as strictly proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued and, accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Unlawful searches were also the subject of the case of DELTA PEKÁRNY a.s. v. the Czech Republic . 731 The applicant company, DELTA PEKÁRNY a.s., a limited company under Czech law, complained that an inspection carried out in its premises in the context of administrative proceedings was not in compliance with the Convention. During the inspection, officials obtained access to certain letters from the company’s representatives. The applicant company was subsequently fined for refusing to allow an in-depth examination of its data. It challenged that the inspection was conducted without having received prior authorisation from a court. All of the appeals lodged by the applicant company, including a constitutional appeal, were dismissed. The Court agreed with the applicant Article 34 NGO and ruled that there had been a violation of Article 8, because the inspection of its premises without any judicial supervision had amounted to a breach of its rights. 732 The decision of the Court in the case of Frank GmbH v. Germany 733 concerned the question of the proportionality of the search and seizure warrant issued by the national court in respect of the applicant company. The search of its business premises and the seizure of a specific tachograph followed the aim to prosecute a traffic offence committed by one of its employees. The Court observed that an interference with the applicant company’s guaranteed right to respect for its ‘home’ during the police search cannot be disputed. However, in order to make the decision in the case, it was necessary to determine whether the interference was justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention. Based on the examination of the materials in its possession, the Court concluded that the search had not been performed in an obtrusive manner. It pointed out that the search warrant was carefully formulated. The police officers who executed the warrant were only required to look for the cabinet where tachographs were kept and took the tachograph in question. In addition, there were no indications that this particular tachograph was in any way significant for the proper functioning of the company. Accordingly, the complaint was rejected as manifestly ill-founded, in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. The Court came to the same conclusion in the case of Polák Spol. s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic. 734 The applicant company complained under Article 8 of the Convention that its right to respect for its home and correspondence had been breached. It maintained in this respect that the high court had wrongly identified the place of its registered office and, as a result, they were unable to receive correspondence from the court. The Court observed that both of the national high courts incorrectly identified the applicant’s seat. Nevertheless, it concluded that there was no indication in the case file that the applicant company’s rights under this provision had not been respected.

731 DELTA PEKÁRNY a.s. v. the Czech Republic, no. 97/11, 2 October 2014. 732 Ibid. , § 94. 733 Frank GmbH v. Germany (dec.), no. 43005/07, 15 November 2011, unpublished. 734 Polák Spol. s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 45469/04, unpublished.

134