| Analysis |
This case is interesting because it deals with the notion of home or the concept of locational privacy. While in current jurisprudence, the Court accepts that quasi every buidling could be considered a ‘home’ (office buildings, restaurants, cars, etc.) – referring to the broad concept of “domicile” in the French version of the Convention – in this earlier Decision (in French), the Commission still adopts a more restricted interpretation of what might be considered a home with referrence to the concept of “home” from the English version of the Convention: ‘la Commission estime que le domicile – “home” – dans le texte anglais de l’article 8 (art. 8)- est une notion précise qui ne pourrait être étendue arbitrairement et que, par conséquent, la fouille de la voiture en stationnement dans les circonstances de la présente affaire, ne saurait être assimilée à une fouille dimiciliaire qui entre dans le domaine d’application de l’article 8 (art. 8).’ To the extent that the search should be considered an inteference with the applicant’s private and family life, such is prescribed for by law and necessary in a democratic society in light of the prevention of disorder and crime.
|