C. Commercial premises

470. Conversely, the safeguards established by domestic law and the practicalities of the search may lead to a finding of no violation of Article 8 (Camenzind v. Switzerland, § 46, and Paulić v. Croatia regarding a search of limited scope geared to seizing an unauthorised telephone; Cronin v. the United Kingdom (dec.) and Ratushna v. Ukraine, § 82, regarding the existence of appropriate safeguards). 471. As regards visits to homes and seizures, the Court has deemed disproportionate the extensive powers conferred on the customs authorities combined with the lack of a judicial warrant (Miailhe v. France (no. 1); Funke v. France; Crémieux v. France). 472. The Court considers the protection of citizens and institutions against the threats of terrorism and the specific problems bound up with the arrest and detention of persons suspected of terroristlinked offences when examining the compatibility of an interference with Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 91; H.E. v. Turkey, §§ 48-49). Anti-terrorist legislation must provide adequate protection against abuse and be complied with by the authorities (Khamidov v. Russia, § 143). For an anti-terrorist operation, see also Menteş and Others v. Turkey, § 73.

61 473. In the case of Sher and Others v. the United Kingdom, the authorities had suspected an imminent terrorist attack and initiated extremely complex investigations in order to foil the attack. The Court agreed that the search warrant had been couched in fairly broad terms. However, it considered that the fight against terrorism and the urgency of the situation could justify a search based on terms that were wider than would otherwise have been permissible. In cases of this nature, the police should be permitted some flexibility in assessing, on the basis of what is encountered during the search, which items might be linked to terrorist activities, and in seizing them for further examination (§§ 174-176).

474. The rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention may include the right to respect for a company’s registered office, branches or other business premises (Société Colas Est and Others v. France, § 41). In connection with an individual’s premises which were also the headquarters of a company which he controlled, see Chappell v. the United Kingdom, § 63. 475. The margin of appreciation afforded to the State in assessing the necessity of an interference is wider where the search measure concerns legal entities rather than individuals (DELTA PEKÁRNY a.s. v. the Czech Republic, § 82; Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others v. Norway, § 159). 476. House searches or visits to and seizures on business premises may comply with the requirements of Article 8 (Keslassy v. France (dec.); Société Canal Plus and Others v. France, §§ 55-57). Such measures are disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued and therefore contrary to the rights protected by Article 8, where there are no “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify them and no appropriate and sufficient safeguards against abuse (Posevini v. Bulgaria, §§ 65-73 with further references therein; Société Colas Est and Others v. France, §§ 48-49). 477. As regards the extent of the tax authorities’ powers of investigation regarding computer servers, for example, the Court has emphasised the public interest in ensuring efficiency in the inspection of information provided by applicant companies for tax assessment purposes and the im-

61 See the Guide on Terrorism.