The applicant’s submissions, which do not express more than his disagreement with the domestic decision, have not shown any clear non-observance of German law.

In the applicant’s case, however, the courts did not recognise that the money he had carried was either the “instrument” or “object” of the offence.

    Article 246 § 4 provided that if the confiscation of the object of offence were ordered as a precautionary measure [but that object] was not the property of the accused, then the owner of

The aim of the search was to find and confiscate prohibited items (narcotics, mobile phones, sharp objects etc.).

  Suite à ces arrestations, le requérant avait été poursuivi et condamné (condamnation non encore définitive) du chef de connivence.

The confiscation of the car pursued no public interest, nor could it have had the aim of preventing the commission of further offences, given that the applicant had not been convicted. 27.

Moreover, the lawyer had not lodged a complaint about the carrying out of a tax investigation of his accounts, nor about its results.

The applicant was not named in the order, nor was it served on her.

Toute ressemblance avec la réalité a fait l’objet de longues investigations   !   » B.     La procédure pénale diligentée contre les requérants 7.

  He also complained under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 of a breach of the principle non bis in idem .

  France , no.

The applicant company did not make a claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 45.

By decision of 26 June 1998, the Federal Council ( Bundesrat ) decided definitively to confiscate the materials seized. The applicant did not receive a copy of this decision.

2- ter into Law no.

He further avers that he received no reply. However, he does not provide any evidence to corroborate these averments.

He also made a point in warning that no photograph should be taken, and that no unnecessary information should be given to anybody, nor any authority. ...

Last but not least, [the fact that the confiscation occurred according to the] procedure [outlined in Law no.

Nor did they rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 directly.

The impugned civil proceedings against the State had provided no reasonable prospect of success, given that the ownership of the lorry had not been disputed and it had therefore not been necessary to prove