Vinci Construction and GMT genie civil and services v. France (applications no. 63629/10 and 60567/10) (AİHS md. 6 ve 8)

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’ne göre, “ticari şirketleri hedef alan denetim ve el koyma, hakimin spesifik bir denetim yürütmesini gerektirir.”

Vinci Construction and GMT genie civil and services v. France kararı, bu meyanda, şu merkezi soruya yöneliktir: rekabet hukuku kapsamındaki suçların kanıtlarını aramak meşru çıkarı ile konut, özel hayat ve yazışmaya saygı hakkı (özellikle avukat-müvekkil değişimlerinin gizliliği) arasındaki denge, nasıl tutturalacaktır? Mahkeme, somut olayın koşulları altında adil yargılanma hakkı ile özel ve aile hayatı ile konut ve yazışmaya saygı hakkının ihlal edildiğine karar vermiştir.

Vinci Construction and GMT genie civil and services v. France kararı, “http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/” adresinden erişilebilirdir.
 
Vinci Construction and GMT genie civil and services v. France kararının basın duyurusu, “http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-5055302-6217138” adresinden erişilebilirdir.

Bu basın duyurusunun özeti, İngilizce haliyle, aşağıdaki gibidir:

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Vinci Construction and GMT genie civil and services v. France (applications no. 63629/10 and 60567/10) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and

a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, for the home and for correspondence).

The case concerned inspections and seizures carried out by investigators from the Department for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Prevention on the premises of two companies. The central question was the weighing up of interests relating, on the one hand, to the legitimate search for evidence of offences under competition law, and, on the other, respect for home, private life and correspondence, and particularly for the confidentiality of lawyer-client exchanges.

The Court considered that the safeguards provided by domestic law, regulating inspections and seizures conducted in the area of competition law, had not been applied in a practical and effective manner in this case, particularly since it was known that the documents seized contained correspondence between a lawyer and his client, which was subject to increased protection. The Court held that where a judge was called upon to examine reasoned allegations that specifically identified documents had been seized, although they were unrelated to the investigation or were covered by legal professional privilege, he or she was required to examine in detail the documents in question and to order their return where appropriate.