Oikeudelliset uutiset, kv tietolähteet, arkisto 2012
EIT:ssa jälleen käsittelyssä kotietsintää koskeva suomalaisvalitus
Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin (EIT) on lähettänyt hallituksen vastattavaksi valituksen, jossa valittaja kertoo, että hänen kotiinsa on tehty kotietsintä toisen henkilön löytämiseksi ilman, että hänelle olisi asiasta ilmoitettu, ilman, että hänelle olisi varattu tilaisuus olla läsnä, kotietsintä olisi tehty kello 23, ja että polisiit olisivat rikkoneet kotietsinnän yhteydessä paikkoja.
EIT:n koostamat faktat ja kysymykset hallitukselle:The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 4 June 2011 the police conducted a search of the applicant’s car and of an apartment which he owned. The apartment was searched because another person staying there was suspected by the police of attempted manslaughter (tapon yritys, försök till dråp). The applicant claims that he, as the owner of the apartment, was not allowed to be present during the search, nor was he told why the apartment was being searched and why he could not be present. The search was conducted late at night (at 11 p.m.) without any special reason. The apartment had been damaged because the police had entered violently even though the applicant had been willing to give them a key.
On
12 September 2011 the applicant received the minutes drawn up after
the search. According to these, the applicant had been informed about
the search and he had been asked to provide a key to the security lock
of the apartment. As no key had been available, the security lock was
drilled by the police with the applicant’s consent.
The applicant complains under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention that his right to respect for his home was violated and that he did not have a possibility, at any stage of the proceedings, to challenge the search before a court. There was thus no effective remedy available to him.
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy
for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the
Convention?
Lisätietoa täältä: Hänninen v. Finland
