PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 73607/13) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a German national, Mr Ulrich Sommer (“the applicant”), on 25 November 2013.

The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr H.-J. Behrens and Mrs K. Behr, of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection.

Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that the public prosecution office had collected and stored information about his professional bank account in a manner which was disproportionate.

On 3 February 2016 the application was communicated to the Government.

Written submissions were received from the German Federal Bar Association (Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer), which had been granted leave by the Vice‑President to intervene as third party (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2 of the Rules of Court).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Cologne. He works as a criminal defence lawyer.

In 2009 the applicant defended a client in criminal proceedings. After the proceedings had concluded, and when the client had already been imprisoned, the client’s fiancée transferred the applicant’s legal fees (1,500 euros (EUR)) from her private bank account to the applicant’s professional account. The subject of the bank transfer read: “Prof Dr Sommer fees (client’s last name)”.

In 2010 and 2011 the Bochum public prosecution office conducted investigations into several individuals suspected of having committed fraud on a commercial basis as members of a gang. One of the suspects was the aforementioned applicant’s former client, who again retained the applicant as his defence lawyer. During these investigations, the bank accounts of several people, including the applicant’s client and the client’s fiancée, were inspected. The inspection revealed that the client’s fiancée had received money (EUR 7,400) which was suspected to have stemmed from illegal activities, and had transferred EUR 1,500 for legal fees to the applicant’s bank account.

On the basis of the bank transfer of fees from the fiancée to the applicant in relation to the first set of criminal proceedings, the Bochum public prosecution office also contacted the applicant’s bank. On 1 March 2011 the public prosecutor asked for a list of all transactions concerning the applicant’s bank account from 1 January 2009 until that day. He asked the bank not to reveal the request to the applicant. He based his request for information on Articles 161a, 51 and 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP”), in conjunction with Article 95 of that Code (see paragraphs 23‑25 below).

On 1 April 2011 the public prosecutor requested further information and asked the following questions: “(a) Which other bank accounts, investment accounts or safe deposit boxes at your bank belong to the person in question? (b) What rights of disposal (Verfügungsberechtigungen) does the person in question have? (c) Who else has a right of disposal? (d) Do other accounts exist of which the person in question is the beneficiary? (e) If so, what are the current balances on these accounts? (f) If bank accounts have been closed by the person in question, please submit information about the date of closure and the balance at the time of closure, and where the money was transferred after closure. (g) Which addresses of the person in question are known to you? (h) Are you aware of any money transfers to or other transactions with foreign countries? If so, please specify the bank, account and amount of each transfer or transaction. (i) Please submit a list of all transactions for all existing or closed accounts from 1 January 2009 onwards. (j) Are there any credit cards connected to any of the accounts?”

The bank complied with both requests for information and submitted the information to the public prosecution office. In both instances, the public prosecutor did not order the bank to submit the information, but pointed to the obligations of witnesses set out in the CCP and the possible consequences of non‑compliance (see paragraph 23 below).

The information received was analysed by the police and the public prosecutor, and a list of fifty-three transactions deemed to be relevant was included in the investigation file as evidence. Therefore, everyone who had access to the case file, such as the lawyers of the co‑accused, also had access to the applicant’s banking information, including the names of his clients who had transferred fees.

On 31 January 2012, after several unsuccessful requests, the applicant, as the lawyer of the accused, was granted access to the investigation file. From the case file he learned, for the first time, of the investigative measures concerning his own bank account.

On 24 April 2012 the applicant asked the Chief Public Prosecutor to hand over to him all data received from the bank and destroy all related data at the public prosecution office. In his request the applicant emphasised his role as a criminal defence lawyer, which was known to the acting public prosecutor, and the consequences for his clients, whose names were accessible through the banking information. He further argued that the investigative measures lacked a legal basis.

On 2 May 2012 the Bochum Chief Public Prosecutor refused the applicant’s request. He stated that there was a suspicion that the money transferred from the client’s fiancée stemmed from illegal activities. Consequently, it was legitimate for the public prosecutor to investigate whether further money transfers had taken place between the applicant and his client or the client’s fiancée. Therefore, since the investigative measures were legitimate, the information received had to be kept in the investigation file. The Chief Public Prosecutor further pointed out that there was no legal basis for returning the data or taking the documents out of the investigation file. The Chief Public Prosecutor cited Article 161 of the CCP (see paragraph 22 below) as a legal basis for the information requests, since the bank in question was a bank under public law and therefore considered to be an authority.

Subsequently, the file was transferred to the Bochum Regional Court (“the Regional Court”), because the criminal proceedings against the applicant’s client had started. The applicant therefore asked the Regional Court to return the data.

On 19 July 2012 the Regional Court refused the applicant’s application. The court found that the investigation was lawful, that the bank had provided the information voluntarily, that the documents could therefore only be returned to the bank and not to the applicant, and that the prohibition of seizure under Article 97 of the CCP (see paragraph 28 below) was not applicable, since the information had not been in the applicant’s possession. Nonetheless, in order to safeguard the client‑lawyer privilege, it also decided to separate the documents in question from the general court file and only grant access to them if reasons proving sufficient interest were provided.

The applicant appealed against the decision. He challenged in particular the findings that the bank had acted voluntarily and that there had been sufficient suspicion for such an extensive analysis of his banking transactions. He further reiterated that, owing to his position as a lawyer, there were several safeguards in place concerning the seizure of documents (see paragraphs 26-29 below), and these should not have been circumvented because his and his clients’ personal information was stored at and by the bank, and not at his office.

On 13 September 2012 the Hamm Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the Regional Court. It found that the decision was proportionate and that the safeguards were not applicable, in particular since the bank could not be considered a person assisting the applicant or a person involved in the professional activities of the applicant under Article 53a of the CCP (see paragraph 27 below).

On 19 September 2013 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the applicant’s constitutional complaint, without providing reasons (case no. 2 BvR 2268/12).
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e1
001-173091_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
73607/13
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-173091_a8_e2
001-173091_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Republic of Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e3
001-173091_a8_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e4
001-173091_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Ulrich Sommer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e5
001-173091_a8_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
25 November 2013
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e3
001-173091_a8_em6
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-173091_a8_e6
001-173091_a8_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Mr H.-J. Behrens
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e7
001-173091_a8_em8
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs K. Behr
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e8
001-173091_a8_em9
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e9
001-173091_a8_em10
DATETIME
QUASI
3 February 2016
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-173091_a8_e10
001-173091_a8_em11
ORG
NO_MASK
German Federal Bar Association (Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e11
001-173091_a8_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
1952
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e12
001-173091_a8_em13
LOC
QUASI
Cologne
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-173091_a8_e13
001-173091_a8_em14
DEM
QUASI
criminal defence lawyer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e14
001-173091_a8_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-173091_a8_e15
001-173091_a8_em16
QUANTITY
QUASI
1,500 euros (EUR)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e16
001-173091_a8_em17
PERSON
QUASI
Dr Sommer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e17
001-173091_a8_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e18
001-173091_a8_em19
DATETIME
QUASI
2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-173091_a8_e19
001-173091_a8_em20
ORG
QUASI
Bochum public prosecution office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-173091_a8_e20
001-173091_a8_em21
QUANTITY
QUASI
EUR 7,400
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-173091_a8_e21
001-173091_a8_em22
QUANTITY
QUASI
EUR 1,500
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e19
001-173091_a8_em23
ORG
QUASI
Bochum public prosecution office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e22
001-173091_a8_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
1 March 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e23
001-173091_a8_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
1 January 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e24
001-173091_a8_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
1 April 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e23
001-173091_a8_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
1 January 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e25
001-173091_a8_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
31 January 2012
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e26
001-173091_a8_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
24 April 2012
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e27
001-173091_a8_em30
ORG
NO_MASK
Chief Public Prosecutor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e13
001-173091_a8_em31
DEM
QUASI
criminal defence lawyer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e28
001-173091_a8_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
2 May 2012
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e27
001-173091_a8_em33
ORG
NO_MASK
Chief Public Prosecutor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e27
001-173091_a8_em34
ORG
NO_MASK
Chief Public Prosecutor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-173091_a8_e27
001-173091_a8_em35
ORG
NO_MASK
Chief Public Prosecutor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-173091_a8_e29
001-173091_a8_em36
ORG
QUASI
Bochum Regional Court (“the Regional Court”)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e30
001-173091_a8_em37
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e31
001-173091_a8_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
19 July 2012
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e30
001-173091_a8_em39
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-173091_a8_e32
001-173091_a8_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
13 September 2012
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e33
001-173091_a8_em41
ORG
QUASI
Hamm Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e30
001-173091_a8_em42
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e34
001-173091_a8_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
19 September 2013
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-173091_a8_e35
001-173091_a8_em44
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-173091_a8_e36
001-173091_a8_em45
CODE
DIRECT
2 BvR 2268/12
Ulrich Sommer
DEU
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Ulrich Sommer