CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 septembre 2005

.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. 78 September 2005 Leveau and Fillon v. France (dec.) - 63512/00 Decision 6.9.2005 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Inspection of buildings which sheltered livestock: Article 8 inapplicable   The applicants are pig farmers. The veterinary service carried out an inspection of their piggeries in order to count the number of animals. The applicants complained that the inspection constituted unlawful entry of their homes. The domestic courts found that there had been no inspection or search of their homes, as the inspection had been confined to the piggeries and had not included the applicants’ offices or private dwellings, which were on a separate site away from the buildings housing the pigs. Inadmissible under Article 8 - The veterinary inspectors had entered only those buildings where the animals were kept, with the specific aim of counting the animals. The buildings in question were separate from the applicants’ dwellings. Furthermore, the farm offices had not been included in the inspection. The concept of “home” could be interpreted widely and apply to business premises. The right of a company to respect for its registered office or business premises could fall within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention. However, it was difficult to see how a farm specialising in pig production and housing several hundred pigs could be described as a “home”, or even as business premises, unless perhaps the company itself were to allege unlawful entry of its headquarters or offices. That had not occurred in this case. Moreover, Mr Leveau had lodged the application in his capacity as a private individual and not as the manager of the limited liability company which ran his farm. In addition, his dwelling was on a separate site away from the buildings used to house the pigs. Article 8 did not therefore apply: incompatible ratione materiae .   © 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