After questioning Funke they spent five and a half hours searching his home; a number of financial documents, a car-repair bill, and two cameras were seized.
In April 1982, customs authorities applied to the Strasbourg District Court for an attachment to Funke's property of 100,220 French franc (FRF).
The customs authorities were demanding a fine, a daily incrementing penalty, and a term in prison for Funke due to his failure to cooperate without good reason.
His arguments were dismissed by the Colmar Court of Appeal in March 1983 - a public authority can interfere with the rights "so long as it is in accordance with the law and ... is necessary in ... the interests of the economic well-being of the country or for the prevention of disorder or crime."
The Court agreed that the initial request for documents and the subsequent penalties were not unreasonable or contrary to the right of a fair trial - the request was a balanced part of a declaratory regime which saved individuals from strict and systematic investigation in return for their accepting certain duties and requirements; the subsequent penalties were a consequence of the refusal to cooperate.
Despite the Custom Code allowing the authorities' actions, they were clear infringement of the individual's right to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating himself.
The Court also found that the French government had breached Article 8-1 in respect to Funke's right to "respect for his private... life, his home and his correspondence," but that the breaches were reasonable under 8-2 as the Custom code had been tightened by case-law and subsequently amended (reform of 1986-89), further there was no requirement in the Convention disputing the ex post facto supervision of searches.
There had however been a breach under Article 8 due to the lack of sufficient safeguards in the Custom Code legislation to prevent disproportionate interference in an individual's rights.