Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of European Court of Human Rights, April 28, 2005 (case CASE OF BUCK v. GERMANY)

Appeal Nbr: 41604/98

Linked as:

Extract

Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of European Court of Human Rights, April 28, 2005 (case CASE OF BUCK v. GERMANY)

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF BUCK v. GERMANY

(Application no. 41604/98)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

28 April 2005

FINAL

28/07/2005

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.

In the case of Buck v. Germany,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Mr B. Zupančič, President,

Mr J. Hedigan,

Mr L. Caflisch,

Mr C. Bîrsan,

Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,

Mrs A. Gyulumyan,

Mrs R. Jaeger, judges,

and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 7 May 2002 and 24 March 2005,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 41604/98) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a German national, Mr Jürgen Buck ("the applicant"), on 23 March 1998. Having been designated before the Commission by the initials J.B., the applicant subsequently agreed to the disclosure of his name.

2. The applicant was represented by Mr M. Buck, a lawyer practising in Leipzig. The German Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Stoltenberg, Ministerialdirigent.

3. The applicant alleged that the search of his business and residential premises had violated Article 8 of the Convention, and that the absence of adequate reasons on the search order amounted to a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

4. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

5. The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

6. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly compos...

See the full content of this document