421 / 464
407
THE CZECH REPUBLIC BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN 2014
other, quite different, under Article 3, though the Czech Government argued – at
least as to an alleged involuntary medical treatment which was the main issue of the
case – that it would better be dealt with under the head of the right to respect for
private life.
2.1 Inspection of commercial premises
Article 8 also protects the right to respect for home and correspondence which
was at stake in the case of
Delta pekárny a.s. v. the Czech Republic
(no. 97/11, judgment
of 2 October 2014, adopted by four votes to three).
The case concerned a dawn raid carried out by the Czech Office for the Protection
of Competition in the applicant company’s premises in order to seize documents and
correspondence relating to the applicant company’s supposed illegal behaviour. The
company was fined for non-compliance with the inspectors’ orders and it asked for
judicial review of the Office’s decision on the fine. The inspection of the premises
was carried out without a previous authorisation of a judge and was only subjected to
judicial control in the framework of the proceedings bearing on the fine.
The Court accepted to consider the company’s commercial premises as “home”
for the purposes of the protection provided by Article 8 of the Convention. It made
an assessment also taking into account the company employees’ allegedly private
e-mails. Having ascertained that the requirement of legality and legitimacy had
been fulfilled, the Court first rejected the applicant company’s argument that only a
previous judicial decision would satisfy the requirement of necessity in a democratic
society. It added that a subsequent judicial review of the legality and necessity of
a dawn raid inspection may also ensure compliance, provided that such review is
effective in the particular circumstances,
i.e.
makes the court check the impugned
measure and the way it has been effected from both factual and legal points of view
and ultimately leads to redress in case of deficiencies.
The Court would find it preferable if a direct action against the measure were
available, but the provisions of the Code of Administrative Justice, as interpreted
by administrative courts, had not given the company a possibility to object directly
to the opportunity and the practical aspects of the execution of the inspection. At
the relevant time, the wording excluded an action against a past and completed
interference, unlikely to be repeated (this changed in the meantime). In addition,
the national case law gave priority to actions against administrative decisions over
actions against interference by administrative authorities. So, only an action against
a decision was available. When examining the fine the administrative courts did not
focus on the inspection as such, or at least, not enough. As a result, the applicant
company did not dispose of sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness and there was
a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.