PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE LEMMENS

I agree with my colleagues on the main aspects of this case. I respectfully disagree, however, on the issue of the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

The applicants complained of interference with their right to respect for their home, on two occasions. The majority decided that this complaint was admissible and well-founded in so far as it related to the second incident.

I consider that the whole complaint based on Article 8 should have been declared inadmissible.

As for the first alleged interference, on 14 August 2001 at around 7 p.m., the majority rightly found that there was not enough evidence to conclude that the police officers G., D. and F. had actually entered the apartment (§ 109). I agree with that finding, and would add that since there is no evidence of any interference, this part of the complaint is inadmissible.

As for the second alleged interference, on 14 August 2001 at around 11 p.m. by police officers S. and T., the majority held that the return of these officers to the applicants ’ apartment, together with the first applicant, in order to collect the drill and the gas gun constituted interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their home (§ 110). It is on this point that I disagree. The police officers came to “seize” the drill and the gas gun, but they did not search the apartment. It is true that they threatened to search the apartment if the first applicant did not hand over the two items, but in my opinion this in itself is not sufficient to conclude that there was actual interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their home. I do not find any sufficiently convincing elements to conclude that the police officers entered the applicants ’ apartment or that they interfered in any other way with the inviolability of their home. Since there is in my opinion not sufficient evidence to conclude that there was any interference, I would declare this part of the complaint inadmissible too, and a fortiori conclude that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

[1] Around EUR 456.18