Niemietz v. Germany (Search of Law Offices)

Series A, No. 251-B, Application No. 13710/88, 16 EHRR 97 (1992)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Niemietz v. Germany (Search of Law Offices)

European Court of Human Rights
Series A, No. 251-B, Application No. 13710/88, 16 EHRR 97 (1992)

Facts

Gottfried Niemietz (plaintiff) was an attorney in Freiburg, Germany. Niemietz had been chairman of a local political party called the Bunte Liste and played a committed role in an organization that advocated to limit the church’s influence. On December 9, 1985, an insulting letter was sent from the Freiburg post office to the judge overseeing a criminal case involving an employer who refused to pay church taxes. The letter was signed by Klaus Wegner (which apparently was a pseudonym). The sender’s address was the same post office box that the Bunte Liste used as its sole address until late December 1985. Some of the Bunte Liste mail addressed to the post office box was delivered to Niemietz and his colleague, who also was active on the party’s behalf. In August 1986, a local court issued a warrant for Niemietz’s office. The warrant ordered the search of documents, without any qualification, relevant to Wegner’s identity. Pursuant to the warrant, the authorities searched filing cabinets that contained client information. After unsuccessfully challenging the search in the German courts, Niemietz filed a complaint with the European Commission (commission), arguing that the search violated his right to respect for his private life, home, and correspondence under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (convention). The commission sustained Niemietz’s claim, concluding that Niemietz’s law practice qualified as his private life and his office qualified as his home under Article 8 due to the confidential nature of the attorney-client relationship. Germany (defendant) contested the commission’s determination, arguing that Article 8 restricted only interference with private homes.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership