ALERTE : PROCEDURE - DAWN RAIDS - RIGHTS OF DEFENCE - LAWYER-CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY - EFFECTIVE REMEDY - PROPORTIONALITY - EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Dawn raids: The European Court of Human Rights finds that searches and seizures in a competition investigation were disproportionate to their goal and in violation if article 8 of the Convention, and demands that targeted companies have an effective remedy in cases of seizures of documents unrelated to the investigation or protected by lawyer-client confidentiality (Vinci/GTM)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. European Court of Human Rights, 2 April 2015, Cases Nos. 63629/10 and 60567/10 (Vinci/GTM v. France). On 2 April 2015, the European Court of Human Rights handed down a judgment in two cases concerning search and seizure operations (Vinci construction and GTM génie civil et services v. France). At the end of this judgment, the Court concludes that the home visits and seizures made to the applicants' homes were disproportionate to the aim pursued, in breach of Article 8, and France is ordered to pay each of the undertakings EUR 15 000 for costs and expenses. This case follows OVS carried out in 2007 by the DGCCRF with the authorization of the JLD and the

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • L’actu-concurrence (Paris)

Quotation

Alain Ronzano, Dawn raids: The European Court of Human Rights finds that searches and seizures in a competition investigation were disproportionate to their goal and in violation if article 8 of the Convention, and demands that targeted companies have an effective remedy in cases of seizures of documents unrelated to the investigation or protected by lawyer-client confidentiality (Vinci/GTM), 2 April 2015, Concurrences N° 3-2015, Art. N° 75277, www.concurrences.com

Visites 427

All reviews