Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

CASE OF BURANDO HOLDING B.V. AND PORT INVEST v. THE NETHERLANDSJOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES GROZEV, PAVLI AND KTISTAKIS

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: May 16, 2023

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

CASE OF BURANDO HOLDING B.V. AND PORT INVEST v. THE NETHERLANDSJOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES GROZEV, PAVLI AND KTISTAKIS

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: May 16, 2023

Cited paragraphs only

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES GROZEV, PAVLI AND KTISTAKIS

We regret that we are unable to follow the majority in its conclusion that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the present case. In our joint dissenting opinion in Janssen de Jong Groep B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 2800/16, 16 May 2023), decided on the same day, we have elaborated on what we consider to be certain significant flaws in the national legal framework and practice which rendered the transmission of the secret surveillance data to the Dutch Competition Authority inconsistent with the safeguards required by Article 8 of the Convention. As these shortcomings are primarily related to the role of the public prosecutor under section 39f of the Judicial and Criminal Data Act, they are equally applicable to the present case. Furthermore, the administrative proceedings conducted by the Competition Authority in this case were even further removed from the original proceedings that gave rise to secret surveillance measures than they were in the circumstances of the case in Janssen de Jong Groep B.V. and Others . We conclude, therefore, that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255