4.  In their capacity as a lawyer and a law firm, the applicants had been retained by Clinique Les Roches Claires, a public limited company (société anonyme), to assist and represent it during audit operations conducted into its affairs for the period 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2000 as a result of an audit notice of 10 July 2000. 5.  On 12 June 2001, pursuant to the provisions of Article L. 16 B of the Code of Tax Procedure, the tax authorities applied to the President of the Marseilles tribunal de grande instance to authorise a search and seizure operation to be carried out in the context of the audit of Clinique Les Roches Claires, with a view to obtaining accounting, legal and corporate documents supporting certain declarations, on account of suspected fraudulent activities (price mark-ups and uninvoiced or fictitious transactions). 6.  By a warrant of the same date the President authorised the tax inspectors, assisted by senior police officers, to carry out the searches and seizures required in order to discover evidence of the alleged activities at certain sites where documents or data carriers connected with the suspected fraud might be found, in particular at the applicants’ place of business, since they had been retained to assist and represent Clinique Les Roches Claires and were therefore assumed to be in possession of documents evidencing the suspected fraud on the part of their client. 7.  The judge authorised only one search, setting 20 June 2001 as the time limit for the search and 30 June 2001 as the time-limit for the submission of a report on the operations. 8.  On 13 June 2001, simultaneous searches were conducted at the locations indicated in the warrant issued by the President of the Marseilles tribunal de grande instance. The operations carried out at the applicants’ place of business by four tax inspectors took place between 7.30 a.m. and 1.10 p.m., in the presence of the first applicant, the chairman of the Marseilles Bar Association and a senior police officer. On that occasion, the first applicant was given a copy of the warrant of 12 June 2001. 9.  A record of the search and seizure operations and an inventory were drawn up and signed by those present. Sixty-six documents were seized. They included handwritten notes and a document with a comment in the first applicant’s handwriting, in respect of which the chairman of the Bar Association expressly pointed out that these were the lawyer’s personal documents and were accordingly protected by the rule of absolute professional secrecy and could not be seized. The first applicant protested at the way in which the search had been carried out and made a number of observations which were logged in the record. He was given a copy of the record and the documents seized. 10.  The applicants appealed on points of law within the statutory time-limit of five days. In their pleadings in support of the appeal, they raised two grounds alleging that the searches and seizures had been unlawful. They stated in particular, relying on professional secrecy and the rights of the defence, that documents sent by a client to that client’s lawyer and correspondence between them could not be seized where the search was not aimed at establishing proof that the lawyer in question had been involved in the offence. They also complained that the search warrant issued by the President of the tribunal de grande instance had failed to mention specifically that the presence of the chairman of the Bar Association or his or her representative was compulsory during the operations. 11.  In a judgment of 11 December 2002 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal. As to the failure to refer specifically to the presence of the chairman of the Bar Association, the court stated that the search warrant did not have to determine the measures required for professional secrecy to be observed, any breaches thereof being examined in the context of the review of the lawfulness of the operations and not the review of the lawfulness of the warrant. As regards the seizure of the documents at issue, the Court of Cassation considered that the professional secrecy of lawyers did not constitute an obstacle to searches of their premises and seizure of any documents in their possession being authorised, in so far as the judge had found that the information provided by the applicant authority contained sufficient evidence for the suspicion mentioned in the warrant.