59 This is the case e.g. concerning the interpretation of Article 8(1) in the European Convention on Human Rights establishing the right to private and family life. According to the ECJ the Article establishing cannot be seen to cover business premises, see Cases 46/87 and 227/88 Hoechst AGv. Commission, para 18. According to the Human Rights Court, the Article covers some business premises and e.g. in case Niemiez v. Germany the Court established that the article covers a lawyer’s office. See also cases Funke, Crémieux and Mialhe v. France.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether the ECJ would see ECB’s fines or other pecuniary measures as amounting to a “criminal charge” within the meaning of Article 6. Smits, René (1997), p. 220.
The European Court on Human Rights has, however, discussed the concept “criminal charge” in several cases and established that disciplinary measures fall outside of the Article. See e.g.