CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2019

.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 }   Communicated on 18 January 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 24173/18 Klaus MÜLLER against Germany lodged on 18 May 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the compatibility of an administrative fine with the legal professional privilege, in particular the confidentiality of lawyer-client relations. The applicant, a lawyer, was mandated by five different companies and provided advice to them. In later criminal proceedings against the directors of four of these companies the applicant, who did not represent the directors in the criminal proceedings, was summoned to testify. Based on his previous lawyer-client relationship with the companies he refused to testify, invoking legal professional privilege. The criminal court fined the applicant in the amount of 600 euro for refusing to testify without justification, because the applicant had been released from confidentiality by the liquidator of four of the companies and the current director of the fifth company. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life or correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law in terms of Article   8 §   2?   In particular, in light of the diverging case-law of different Court of Appeals concerning the required confidentiality waivers, was the law sufficiently precise and foreseeable?   3.     If so, was the interference necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?