## Facts

- A judge in Freiburg received an anonymous insulting letter mailed from the local post office and signed with an apparent pseudonym.
- The letter used a return address tied to a post office box previously used by a local political group in which a Freiburg lawyer, Gottfried Niemietz, was active; some mail for that box was delivered to his law office.
- A district court issued a search warrant for Niemietz’s law office authorizing a search for documents, without meaningful limitation, that could identify the letter’s author.
- Police executed an extensive search of the office (shared with another lawyer), examined numerous materials including client files, and seized documents, creating a risk of exposure of privileged lawyer–client information.
- Niemietz challenged the search domestically on legality and professional-secrecy grounds; German courts upheld the measure as lawful and proportionate to investigating the offense.
- Niemietz complained under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and also invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

## Issues

1. Whether the search of a lawyer’s professional office constituted an interference with “private life,” “home,” or “correspondence” under Article 8(1).
2. If Article 8 applied, whether the search was justified under Article 8(2) as lawful, pursuing a legitimate aim, and necessary in a democratic society.
3. Whether the search and seizure raised a separate issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions).

## Decision

- The court held Article 8 applied: the search interfered with respect for the applicant’s private life and home, and implicated correspondence to the extent professional correspondence was examined or seized.
- The court found the interference was in accordance with law and pursued a legitimate aim (prevention of disorder or crime).
- The court held there was a violation of Article 8 because the search was not shown to be necessary in a democratic society.
- The court found no separate issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in light of the Article 8 violation.
- The court denied pecuniary damages and treated the violation finding as sufficient satisfaction for non-pecuniary harm; it also dismissed claims for costs and expenses.

## Legal Principles

- “Private life” under Article 8 is not confined to an inner personal sphere and can include professional activities where they affect personal autonomy and relationships.
- “Home” under Article 8 may extend beyond a residence to professional premises, including a lawyer’s office, where protection against arbitrary official intrusion is warranted.
- Searches of lawyers’ offices are not categorically barred, but they require heightened justification because of the importance of lawyer–client confidentiality to the administration of justice.
- Even when lawful and aimed at crime prevention, a search must be proportionate: warrants must be sufficiently specific and the search must be supported by safeguards that reduce the risk of access to unrelated privileged material.
- A broadly framed warrant permitting indiscriminate review of client files, combined with inadequate protective procedures for professional secrecy, can render a search unnecessary in a democratic society under Article 8(2).

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the expansive search of a lawyer’s office, conducted under an overly broad warrant and without adequate safeguards for privileged materials, was disproportionate to the investigative aim and violated Article 8’s protections for private life, home, and correspondence.


Niemietz v. Ger., 16 Eur. H.R. Rep. 97 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1992)