Art. 8 ECHR Flashcards
Is art.8 an absolute or qualified right?
It is a qualified right which states can seek to justify any interference.
4 specific rights in art.8(1) and art.8(2) allows states to justify actions.
3 components to prove it is lawful to interfere with their art.8(1) right
- Any interference should be “in accordance with the law”
- Any interference should be “necessary in a democratic society”
- Any interference must be for a “legitimate aim” – spelled out in the wording in art.8(2).
Case which held that ‘private life’ under Art.8 has no comprehensive definition because it is ever-expanding its boundaries
Niemietz v Germany (1992)
“Respect for private life must also comprise to a certain degree the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings.”
This shows that although the court won’t give a definition, they apply a broad approach.
Case which held that one’s private life includes protection in their moral and sexual integrity
X. ; Y. v Netherlands (1985)
FACTS - 16yr old girl had severe learning disabilities. her father suspected she had been sexually assaulted in her care home but Dutch law said if the victim was 16 or over then they would have to formally go to the police which wasn’t possible because of her severe disability. wouldn’t let her father do it on her behalf
HELD - there had been a failure of the positive obligation of his daughter’s criminal law protection of private life – protection from serious sexual assault
Case which found a violation of Art.8 right to private life through the retention of the applicants’ fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles
S. and Marper v UK (2008)
This was a blanket and indiscriminate power of retention in England and Wales. The material may be retained irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence with which the individual was originally suspected or of the age of the suspected offender. The retention is not time-limited and there exist only limited possibilities for an acquitted individual to have the data removed from the nationwide database or the materials destroyed
Case in which the ECtHR rejected the argument that art.8 conferred a right to abortion
A. B. and C. v Ireland (2010)
But found that Ireland had violated the ECHR by failing to provide an accessible and effective procedure by which a woman can have established whether she qualifies for a legal abortion under current Irish law.
Case which held that laws making certain homosexual acts criminal in any event were contrary to Art.8.
Dudgeon v UK (1981)
HELD - Sexual conduct is ‘an essentially private manifestation of the human personality’. A person’s sexual life was ‘a most intimate aspect’ of private life within the convention.
- The more intimate the aspects of private life which are being interfered with, the more serious must be the reasons for doing so before the interference can be legitimate.
Case which held a criminal conviction cannot constitute an interference with the right to respect for private life under Article 8, unless there are special circumstances in a particular case calling for a different conclusion.
Laskey, Jaggard; Brown v UK (1997)
HELD - A prosecution for sado-masochist acts was a necessary invasion of privacy to protect health. The Court found no violation - there was no unjustifiable interference.
Case about a UK ban on homosexuals within the armed forces under Art.8 ECHR
Smith & Grady v UK (1999)
HELD - was a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life. The investigations into private lives and sexual activity were intrusive, and given the excessive consequences following, were also striking in their inability to admit of exceptions.
NB - the argument made in this case surrounding the fact that the UK courts were found to have such a high threshold for considering the rationality of Ministry of Defence policies that it effectively excluded any consideration by the domestic courts of the question of whether the interference with the applicants’ rights was needed or proportionate
THREE cases regarding the protection of transsexuals under Art.8 ECHR
- Rees v UK (1986) - about transsexuals right to an amended birth certificate -Strasburg found there was no European consensus and so they said states have a wide margin of appreciation
states acting outside this wide margin of appreciation -
2. B. v France (1992) - applied Rees and said they had a wide margin of appreciation but still recognised that the refusal to change her ID was causing such serious effect that they found a breach there
- Christine Goodwin v UK (2002) - argued that now the majority of European states gave full legal rights to transsexuals and have been recognised and so the law under the ECHR should change and they shouldn’t be given a wide margin of appreciation - they agreed so there was found to be a breach so states now don’t have a wide margin of appreciation on the issue.
Case which is an example of the close connection between European consensus and the margin of appreciation given by the ECtHR.
Christine Goodwin v UK (2002)
HELD that states will no longer have a wide margin of appreciation regarding the recognition of transsexuals as their preferred gender because the majority of European states gave full legal rights to transsexuals
- Critics might say the courts response in these cases they were clearly waiting for European consensus so they could respond to it.
THREE cases on secret surveillance under Art.8 ECHR
- Leander v Sweden (1987) - job at the naval museum
- Hewitt & Harman v UK (1989) - found breach only because MI5 denied its existence at the time so there were no safeguards in place so wasn’t justified under Art.8(2)
- Khan v UK (2000)
What is the more traditional notion of private life?
secret surveillance cases - idea of a totalitarian state spying on its inhabitants
Case which held it was a breach of art.8’s right to private life to keep secret files on citizens
Leander v Sweden (1987)
FACTS - man tried to get job at naval museum attached to the army base so needed a background check. The National police in Sweden secretly kept files on people who were deemed to be security risks and Leander flagged up as a risk.
HELD - keeping the secret files was a breach of art.8 BUT.. states should be given a wide margin of appreciation to decide their own national security issues, ECtHR aren’t in the best position to judge their national security threat.
Secret service case which highlights the commission’s view that there needs to be legal safeguards to be justified under Art.8(2) ECHR
Hewitt & Harman v UK (1989)