CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 30 May 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no 33012/13 Konstantīns BEREZOVS against Latvia lodged on 20 May 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns an allegedly unjustified inspection of the applicant’s home in connection with the administrative-offence proceedings, instituted on information received from an anonymous witness. QUESTIONS 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life or home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the inspection of 15 November 2012?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, were “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons adduced to justify the inspection of 15 November 2012? Did the Latvian legislation and practice afford individuals adequate and effective safeguards against abuse (see Buck v. Germany , no. 41604/98, § 45, ECHR   2005 ‑ IV and Smirnov v. Russia , no. 71362/01, § 44, ECHR   2007 ‑ VII)?