Judgment_paragraph 29 · Roquette Frères SA v Directeur général de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes, and Commission of the European Communities (C-94/00)

29For the purposes of determining the scope of that principle in relation to the protection of business premises, regard must be had to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights subsequent to the judgment in Hoechst. According to that case-law, first, the protection of the home provided for in Article 8 of the ECHR may in certain circumstances be extended to cover such premises (see, in particular, the judgment of 16 April 2002 in Colas Est and Others v. Prance, No 37971/97 in the Reports of Judgments and Decisions, § 41) and, second, the right of interference established by Article 8(2) of the ECHR ‘might well be more far-reaching where professional or business activities or premises were involved than would otherwise be the case’ (Niemietz v. Germany, cited above, § 31).