73Even if the lack of a prior judicial warrant is not capable, in itself, of rendering an interference illegal — in contrast to the assertions of the applicants — it is necessary to examine whether the system established by Regulation No 1/2003, particularly Article 20(4) thereof, and the way in which that article was applied by the adoption of the three inspection decisions, offered appropriate and sufficient safeguards so as to restrict sufficiently the powers of the Commission. The ECtHR has consistently pointed out that an acceptable level of protection against interferences with rights under Article 8 of the ECHR entails a legal framework and strict limits (Harju v. Finland, paragraph 66 above, paragraph 39; Heino v. Finland, paragraph 66 above, paragraph 40; Varga v. Romania, paragraph 70 above, paragraph 70; and Société Canal Plus and Others v. France, paragraph 59 above, paragraph 54).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.