SCHEMES

Investigative Measure -> Article 8 ECHR

1) Private life -> (i) is there an expectation of privacy for ‘the reasonable person’? - (ii)
the interference must be done by the STATE

2) Lawfulness -> Legal basis -> precise, foreseeable and accessible

- Adequate guarantees against abuse -> When do you have them? KRUSLIN:
Cumulatives conditions - ONLY IOT:
1. Personal scope ->
2. Material scope ->
3. Authorization -> (who authorised the investigation?)
4. Urgent Circumstances
5. Duration
- Lawfully executed -> here you check whether the criteria above were
executed - so for example you say 1, 2, 3, where not executed

3) Legitimate Aim -> ‘prevention of crime’ is the most used one -> USE THIS ONE!

4) Necessary in a democratic society -> you have to check two elements, namely:
- Subsidiarity -> Could we have used any other less intrusive measure?
- Proportionality -> Was it proportional to the crime/ investigative purpose? -
Buck v Germany / KS v Germany (circumstances like reputation…)

ENGLISH LAW

- You don’t need reasonable suspicion -> NO SUSPICION NEEDED

- Double lock for WARRANT -> (1)
- Duration -> UP TO 6 MONTHS
- Emergency -> You need to receive the approval by the judicial authority within 9
WORKING DAYS (2021) AND - IF - the approval is denied then you have to stop the
IOT within 5 WORKING DAYS

1) Interference in the Private Life by the State

2) Lawfulness -> legal basis, accessibility…
- MODESTOU V GREECE (Premises)
1. IF WARRANT:
 - Scope
- Justification
- Precise
2. IF NO WARRANT:
- Safeguards
- Ex post facto authorisation

UK -> SECTION 8 PACE -> attention is on property (building)

1) Reasonable belief of indictable offence

2) Reasonable belief of evidence on premise
3) WARRANT -> Only if you didn’t get consent by the person

GERMANY -> attention is on the people

102

1) Suspect of Criminal offence

2) Warrant
3) Presence of…
4) Presumption that you’ll find evidence (you don't need past evidence or suggestions -
unlike UK)

103

(2) is an exception

105