CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 novembre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 124 November 2009 Hartung v. France (dec.) - 10231/07 Decision 3.11.2009 [Section V] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Identity check by police in orchestra conductor’s dressing room: inadmissible   Facts – In February 2005 a company managed by the applicant organised a concert, which he conducted. At the end of the concert at 10.30   p.m., all those who had taken part in it were subjected to checks by the competent employment-law authorities, at the request of the Public Prosecutor. The applicant had already returned to his dressing room when his identity was checked. The police officers asked him to present all documents and other evidence of the musicians’ status as employees or self-employed workers. He was prosecuted for concealed work. In 2006 the Court of Cassation definitively dismissed an application by the applicant to have the investigative measures set aside, and confirmed that the dressing room could not be considered as a “home”. Law – Article 8: Under the applicable provisions of domestic law, the police officers had been required to verify the applicant’s compliance with employment-law and social welfare regulations. The domestic courts had considered that the police officers had acted within the framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibited any such verification at a “home”. In addition, despite the fact that an artist’s dressing room enabled its occupant to enjoy a certain level of privacy, it had been available for the applicant’s use on a very occasional basis, given that it was a dressing room made temporarily available, for the duration of a single concert, to the various artists who might be booked to perform in the concert hall. In those circumstances, the Court expressed doubt as to whether such premises amounted to a private or professional “home” for the purposes of Article   8. Even supposing that the check carried out by the police officers could be considered as amounting to interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, such interference was, in any event, justified, for the following reasons. The check was carried out on the basis of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was thus in accordance with the law. It was intended to verify the applicant’s compliance with the employment legislation and thus pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder or crime. In addition, it was justified by the need to verify compliance with the provisions of employment law and, if necessary, to gather evidence of a possible offence that may have been committed by the applicant. As to the conditions in which the check took place, after entering the applicant’s dressing room the police officers had checked his identity papers and asked him to provide the relevant employment documents, in accordance with the task entrusted to them by the prosecutor, and had not searched the dressing room or seized any objects or papers. Finally, the applicant could have contested the inspection. Thus, the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, assuming that it was proved, had not been disproportionate in relation to the aims pursued. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes