Rassegna diritti umani ECHR European Court of Human Rights

This compilation was prepared by the Data Protection Unit of the Council of Europe
(dataprotection@coe.int) and the European Court of Human Rights takes no responsibility for its content.

T judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Strasbourg, December 2022 T-PD(2023)1

CASE LAW OF THE
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

CONCERNING THE PROTECTION
OF PERSONAL DATA

Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law

2

Thematic Table of Contents

Access to Personal Data

Eur. Court of HR, Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, application no. 9248/81. Use
of information kept in a secret police- suitability for
employment on a post of importance for national security.

Eur. Court of HR, Gaskin v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, application no.
10454/83. Refusal to grant former child in care unrestricted access to case records kept by social
services.

Eur. Court of HR, McMichael v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, application
no. 16424/90. The applicant complained about the non-disclosure to them of some confidential
documents submitted in care proceedings

Eur. Court of HR, M.G v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 September 2002, application no.
social service records

Eur. Court of HR, Odièvre v. France, judgment of 13 February 2003, application no. 42326/98.
Applicant complained about her inability to find out about origins of her mother. The Court ruled
th obtained.

Eur. Court of HR, K.H. and others v. Slovakia, judgment of 28 April 2009, application no.
32881/04. The applicants complain under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life),
and Article 6§ 1 (access to court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European
Convention on Human Rights about not having been allowed to make photocopies of their
medical records, the impossibility for the applicants or their lawyers to obtain photocopies of their
medical records having limited their effective access to court and not guaranteeing a remedy to
challenge a law itself.

Eur. Court of HR, Tsourlakis v. Greece, judgment of 15 October 2009, application no. 50796/07.
The applicant complains under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for
correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights about being prevented from
consulting the report of the Child Welfare Society about his son.

Eur. Court of HR, Haralambie v. Romania, judgment of 27 October 2009, application no.
21737/03. The applicant complains under Article 6§ 1 (access to court) and Article 8 (right to
respect for private and family life and for correspondence) of the European Convention on
Human Rights about the proceedings concerning the restoration of the land that had belonged
to his mother and the obstacles to his right of access to the personal file created on him by the
former secret services.

Eur. Court of HR, Dalea v. France, judgment of 2 February 2010, application 58243/00. Inability
to access or secure rectification of personal data in Schengen database. The Court ruled that
itself prove that the interference was not justified by national security interests

Eur. Court of HR, Godelli v. Italy, judgment of 25 September 2012, application no. 33783/09.
ake

.

Eur. Court of HR. M.K. v. France, judgment of 18 April 2013, application no. 19522/09. The Court
found that the absence of safeguards for collection, preservation and deletion of fingerprint
records of persons suspected but not convicted of criminal offences is contrary to Article 8 of the
Convention.

Eur. Court of HR, Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 11 January 2022, application
no. 70078/12. The case concerned secret surveillance and the system of retention and
subsequent accessing of communications data in Bulgaria. The Court found a violation of Article
8 in respect of secret surveillance and a violation of Article 8 in respect of retention and accessing
of communication data.

Balancing Data Protection with Freedom of Expression and the Right to Information

Eur. Court of HR, Peck v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 January 2003, application no.
44647/98. The applicant complained about the disclosure of the CCTV footage to the media,
which resulted in images of himself being published and broadcast widely, and about a lack of
an effective domestic remedy.

89

Eur. Court of HR, Von Hannover v. Germany, judgment of 24 June 2004, application no.

for photos taken of public figures in public spaces.

96

Eur. Court of HR, Sciacca v. Italy, judgment of 11 January 2005, application no. 50774/99. The
applicant submits that the dissemination of the photograph at a press conference organised by
the public p
life.

97

expression.

147

Eur. Court of HR, Mosley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 May 2011, application no.
48009/08. The European Convention on Human Rights does not require media to give prior
notice of intended publications to those who feature in them.

148

Eur. Court of HR, Avram and Others v. Moldova, judgment of 05 July 2011, application no.
41588/05. Five women broadcast on national television in a sauna romp with police officers
should have received higher compensation.

152

Eur. Court of HR, Axel Springer AG v. Germany, judgment of 7 February 2012, application no.

in reasonable balance with the right to respect for private life.

155

Eur. Court of HR, Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2), judgment of 7 February 2012, applications
nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, Applicant complained about refusal of domestic courts to issue
injunction restraining further publication of a photograph of a famous couple taken without their
knowledge.

157

4

Eur. Court of HR, Alkaya v. Turkey, judgment of 9 October 2012, application no. 42811/06. Press

165

Eur. Court of HR. Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others v. Norway, judgment of 14 March 2013,
application no. 24117/08. The applicants complained about a decision ordering them to provide
the tax auditors with a copy of all data on a computer server which the three companies used

working for them, on the one hand, and the public interest in ensuring efficient inspection for tax
Assessment purposes, on the other hand. Therefore it is in accordance with the law.

169

, judgment of 16 July 2013,

The respondent State had complied with its obligation to strike a balance between the rights
guaranteed under Article 8 and 10 of the Convention.

174

Eur. Court of HR. Haldimann and Others v Switzerland, judgment of 24 February 2015,
application no. 21830/09. Balance between freedom of expression and right to privacy. The
applicants complained about their conviction for having recorded and broadcasted an interview

and his voice. The Court considered that the interference in the private life of the broker, who
had turned down an opportunity to express his views on the interview in question, had not been
serious enough to override the public interest in information on malpractice in the field of
insurance brokerage. The Court found, by majority, that there had been a violation of the freedom
of expression.

184

Eur. Court of HR. Bremner v. Turkey, judgment of 13 October 2015, application no. 37428/06.
Television broadcast showing non-blurred images of an individual obtained using a hidden

tified by general-
interest. The State overpassed its margin of appreciation and violated Article 8.

191

Eur. Court of HR, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland, judgment of 27
June 2017, application no. 931/13. After two companies had published the personal tax
information of 1.2 million people, the domestic authorities ruled that such wholesale publication
of personal data had been unlawful under data protection laws, and barred such mass
publications in future. The companies complained to the European Court of Human Rights that
the ban had violated their right to freedom of expression. The Court held that the ban had

because it had been in accordance with the law, it had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting
uck a fair balance between the right to privacy and the right to

freedom of expression. However, the Court did find a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair
hearing within a reasonable time), due to the excessive length of the proceedings.

239

5

Eur. Court of HR, Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan, judgment of 10 January 2019, application
no. 65286/13. The case concerned an alleged smear campaign against a well-known journalist,
Khadija Rovshan qizi Ismayilova. In particular, she was sent a letter threatening her with public

without her knowledge of her and her then boyfriend was posted on the Internet. Around the
same time, newspapers ran stories accusing her of anti-government bias and immoral behaviour.
She later discovered hidden cameras all over her flat. The Court took particular note of reports
of journalists in Azerbaijan being persecuted and the perceived climate of impunity for such acts.
In sum, the Court found that the Azerbaijani authorities had failed to comply with their positive

shortcomings in the investigation and the overall length of the proceedings in her case. Also, the

freedom of expression under Article 10.

266

Eur.Court of HR, Høiness v. Norway, judgement of 19 March 2019, application no. 43624/14.

after vulgar comments about Ms Høiness had been posted on the forum. The Court found in

right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the news portal and host of the debate forums.

277

Eur. Court of HR, Marina v. Romania, judgment of 26 may 2020, application nos. 50469/14.The
case concerned a radio programme during which a letter was read out containing personal
information about Mr Marina and his ex-wife, without their knowledge and on the initiative of the

.

299

Eur. Court of HR, Hurbain v. Belgium, judgment of 22 June 2021, application no 57292/16. The
case concerned an order to anonymise an article in a newspaper's electronic archive (which
referred to a person's involvement in a fatal road accident for which he was subsequently
convicted). The domestic court had taken the view that to keep the article online could cause

he had not only served his sentence after a final conviction but had also been rehabilitated. It
had thus found that the most effective way to ensure respect for his private life, without

Belgian

-law. The Court of Appeal had, in particular, considered the harm sustained
by the driver on account of the article being online, having regard to the passage of time (about
20 years) since its original publication and to the fact that its anonymisation on the website of Le
Soir would not affect the text of the original article and would be the most effective and
proportionate measure, among the various options. The reasons given by the domestic courts
had thus been relevant and sufficient, and the measure imposed on Mr Hurbain could be
regarded as propor
life) and as striking a fair balance between the competing rights at stake.

318

Eur. Court of HR, Hájovský v. Slovakia, judgment of 1 July 2021, application no 7796/16. The
case concerned a newspaper publication of private information and non-blurred photographs of
the applicant taken covertly and under pretences. The Court undertook a balancing test

and concluded that there had been a violation of Article 8.

321

6

Eur. Court of HR, Standard Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v. Austria (no. 3), judgment of 7 December
2021, application no. 39378/15. The case concerned court orders for the applicant media
company to reveal the sign-up information or registered users who had posted comments on its
website, derStandard.at, the website of the newspaper Der Standard. This had followed
comments allegedly linking politicians to, among other things, corruption or neo-Nazis, which the
applicant company had removed, albeit refusing to reveal the information of the commenters.
The Court found in particular that user data did not
and there was no absolute right to online anonymity. However, the domestic courts had not even
balanced the interests of the plaintiffs with the interests of the applicant company in keeping its
users anonymous so as to help promote the free exchange of ideas and information as covered
by Article 10. The Court found a violation of Article 10.

334

Eur. Court of HR, Biancardi v. Italy, judgment of 25 November 2021, application no 77419/16.
-in-chief of an online

article reporting on a fight in a restaurant, giving details on the related criminal proceedings. The
courts noted in particular that the applicant had failed to de-index the tags to the article, meaning
that anyone could type into a search engine the name of the restaurant or its owner and have

search engine providers could be obliged to de-index material but also administrators of
newspaper or journalistic archives accessible through the Internet, such as the applicant. It also

the criminal proceedings concerning the restaurant owner had breached his right to reputation.

breached, and all the more so given that he had not actually been required to remove the article
from the In
civil liability for not de-indexing information published on the Internet had been compatible with
Article 10 of the Convention.

332

Eur. Court of HR, Algirdas Butkevicius v. Lithuania, judgment of 14 June 2022, application No

that was secretly recorded during a pre-trial investigation into possible corruption in connection

-
Lithuania. The Court found that, even if
disclosure of his telephone conversation, there was no evidence that it had been affected to such
an extent that it could count as a disproportionate interference with his rights guaranteed by
Article 8 of the Convention.

348

Consent of the Data Subject

Eur. Court of HR, Murray v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1994, application no.
14310/88. As far as a person suspected of terrorism is concerned, entry into and search of her
home for the purpose of effecting the arrest; record of personal details and photograph without
her consent

58

Eur. Court of HR, K.U. v. Finland, judgment of 2 December 2008, application no. 2872/02. The
applicant complains about the invasion of his private life and the fact that no effective remedy
existed under Finnish law to reveal the identity of the person who had posted the ad about him
on the Internet dating site.

119

7

Eur. Court of HR, E.S. v. Sweden, judgment of 21 June 2012, application no. 5786/08. Sweden
did not fail to protect 14-year old girl after her stepfather attempted to film her naked.

159

Eur. Court of HR. Elberte v Latvia, judgment of 13 January 2015, application no. 61243/08. The

experts after his death, without her knowledge or consent. Unknown to Ms Elberte, pursuant to
a State-

-
implants. She only learned about the course of events tw
a criminal investigation was launched in Latvia into allegations of wide-scale illegal removal of
organs and tissues from cadavers. However, domestic authorities eventually did not establish
any elements of crime.

178

Eur. Court of HR, G.S.B. v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 December 2015, application no.

account details in connection with an administrative cooperation agreement between Switzerland
and the USA. The Court noted that the applicant had had access to several effective and genuine
procedural safeguards in order to contest the transmission of his bank details and to secure
protection against arbitrary implementation of agreements concluded between Switzerland and
the US.

197

Eur. Court of HR, Y.Y. v. Russia, judgment of 23 February 2016, application no. 40378/06. The
applicant complained that the St Petersburg Committee for Healthcare had collected and
examined her medical records and those of her children and forwarded its report containing the
results of its examination, to the Ministry of Healthcare without her consent. The Court found a
violation of Article 8 because the actions in dispute did not constitute a foreseeable application
of the relevant Russian law.

206

Eur. Court of HR, Bogomolova v. Russia, judgment of 20 June 2017, application no. 13812/09.

a violation of Article 8, stating in particular that the domestic courts had failed to examine whether
the applicant had given her consent for the publication of the photograph, focusing instead on
the authorisation she had given that her son be photographed. The Court also highlighted the
false impressions and inferences which could be drawn from the context of the photograph.

233

Eur. Court of HR, Strand Lobben and others v. Norway, judgement of 10 September 2019,

authority followed by a decision of adoption of her eldest son. The Grand Chamber concluded
that the procedure in question had not been accompanied by safeguards that were
commensurate with the gravity of the interference and the seriousness of the interests at stake.

282

Eur. Court of HR, Omorefe v. Spain, judgement of 23 June 2020, application number 69339/16.
The case concerned the placement in foster care and subsequent adoption of a child and the
inability of the biological mother to retain contact with him.

304

Correspondence

Eur. Court of HR, Malone v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, application no.
8691/79. Interception of postal and telephone communications and release of information

general context of criminal investigation.

46

8

Eur. Court of HR, Amann v. Switzerland, judgment of 16 February 2000, application no.
27798/95. The applicant complained that the interception of the telephone call and the creation

75

Eur. Court of HR, Cotlet v. Romania, judgment of 3 June 2003, application no. 38565/97. The
applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention of interference with his correspondence
with the Convention institutions. He also complained of a violation of his right of individual
application, as guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention.

91

Eur. Court of HR, Matwiejczuk v. Poland, judgment of 2 December 2003, application no.
37641/97 (No violation of Article 34). The applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial
detention, the length of the criminal proceedings against him and that his letters were monitored
during his detention.

95

Eur. Court of HR, Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, judgment of 14 January 2005, application no. 92/03.
The applicant complained that the proceedings resulting in his conviction had been unfair and
that his right to respect for his correspondence had been infringed.

99

Eur. Court of HR, Copland v. United Kingdom, judgment of 3 April 2007, application no.
-

mail and internet usage had been moni

112

Eur. Court of HR, Szuluk v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 2 June 2009, application no.
36936/05. The applicant complains under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and
for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights about the monitoring by
prison authorities of medical correspondence between the applicant a convicted prisoner and
his external specialist doctor.

128

Eur. Court of HR, Kennedy v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 18 May 2010, application no.
26839/05. The applicant complains under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and
for correspondence), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)
about the alleged interception of his communications, the unfair hearing before the IPT, and
having been denied an effective remedy.

140

Eur. Court of HR. Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others v. Norway, judgment of 14 March 2013,
application no. 24117/08. The applicants complained about a decision ordering them to provide
the tax auditors with a copy of all data on a computer server which the three companies used

working for them, on the one hand, and the public interest in ensuring efficient inspection for tax
Assessment purposes, on the other hand. Therefore it is in accordance with the law.

169

Eur. Court of HR, Mustafa Sezgin Tanrikulu v Turkey, judgment of 18 July 2017, application no.

interception of his communications had been unlawful and in violation of Article 8 of the
Convention because of its indiscriminate nature. The Court found a violation of Article 8.

243

9

Eur. Court of HR Buturuga v. Romania, judgment of 11 February 2020, application no. 56867/15.
The case concerned allegations of domestic violence and of violation of the confidentiality of
electronic correspondence by the former husband of the applicant, who complained of
shortcomings in the system for protecting victims of this type of violence. The Court found that
the national authorities had not addressed the criminal investigation as raising the specific issue
of domestic violence, and that they had thereby failed to provide an appropriate response to the
seriousness of the facts complained applicant.

293

Eur. Court of HR, Algirdas Butkevicius v. Lithuania, judgment of 14 June 2022, application No

that was secretly recorded during a pre-trial investigation into possible corruption in connection
with territo

-
ected by the

disclosure of his telephone conversation, there was no evidence that it had been affected to such
an extent that it could count as a disproportionate interference with his rights guaranteed by
Article 8 of the Convention.

348

DNA Database

Eur. Court of HR, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 4 December 2008,
applications nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04. The applicants complain under Articles 8 (right to
respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention about
the retention by the authorities of their fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles after their
acquittal or discharge.

120

Eur. Court of HR, Mifsud v. Malta, judgement of 29 January 2019, application no. 62257/15. The

a contested paternity case. The Court found that the domestic courts had fairly balanced Mr

-instance
civil court and at two levels of constitutional jurisdiction, eventually finding against him and
ordering the procedure to take place. No violation of Article 8.

272

Eur. Court of HR, Trajkovski and Chipovski v. North Macedonia, judgment of 13 February 2020,
application nos. 53205/13 and 63320/13.The case concerned the retention of DNA data of
convicted persons. The indefinite retention is a disproportionate interference with the applicants'
right to privacy.

296

GPS Data

Eur. Court of HR, Uzun v. Germany, judgment of 2 September 2010, application no. 35623/05.
Applicant complained about information obtained on him via GPS surveillance. The Court
considered that adequate and effective safeguards against abuse had been in place.

346

10

Health Data

Eur. Court of HR, Z. v. Finland, judgment of 25 February 1997, application no. 22009/93. The
applicant complains about the seizure of medical records and their inclusion in investigation file

confidentiality of the medical data concerned; the publication of her identity and HIV infection in
a court judgment given in those proceedings.

64

Eur. Court of HR, Anne-Marie Andersson v. Sweden, judgment of 27 August 1997, application
no. 20022/92. The applicant complained of the impossibility for a patient, prior to the
communication of personal and confidential medical data by medical authority to a social
services authority, to challenge the measure before a court.

69

Eur. Court of HR, M.S. v. Sweden, judgment of 27 August 1997, application no. 20837/92. The
applicant maintained that the communication of her medical records by the clinic to the Social
Insurance Office constituted a violation of her right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the
Convention.

71

Eur. Court of HR, L.L. v. France, judgment of 10 October 2006, application no. 7508/02. The
applicant complains about the production and use in court proceedings of documents from his
medical records, without his consent and without a medical expert having been appointed in that
connection.

110

Eur. Court of HR, I. v. Finland, judgment of 3 April 2007, application no. 20511/03, Complaint
tial patient records and that

the district health authority had failed to provide adequate safeguards against unauthorised
access of medical data.

114

Eur. Court of HR, Szuluk v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 2 June 2009, application no.
36936/05. The applicant complains under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and
for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights about the monitoring by
prison authorities of medical correspondence between the applicant a convicted prisoner and
his external specialist doctor.

128

Eur. Court of HR. Mitkus v. Latvia, judgment of 2 October 2012 application no. 7259/03. The
applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that a newspaper article disclosed
information about his HIV infection and published his photo.

162

Eur. Court of HR, Avilkina and Others v. Russia, judgment of 6 June 2013, application no.
1585/09. The applicants claimed that the unjustified disclosure of confidential medical data

information without
giving them any notice or opportunity to object or appeal is illegitimate.

173

Eur. Court of HR. Radu v. the Republic of Moldova, judgment of 15 April 2014, application no.
50073/07. The applicant complained about a State-
information to her employer. The proceedings were brought against the hospital and the Police
Academy claiming compensation for a breach of her right to private life. The Court found that the

96

11

Eur. Court of HR. L.H. v Latvia, judgment of 29 April 2014, application no. 52019/07. The
applicant complained about a lack of precision of domestic law that allows public authorities the
collection of his medical data. The Court found that the applicable law had failed to indicate with
sufficient clarity the scope of discretion conferred on competent authorities and manner of its
exercise.

177

Eur. Court of HR, Surikov v. Ukraine, judgment of 26 January 2017, application no. 42788/06.
The applicant complained that his employer had arbitrarily collected, retained, and used
sensitive, obsolete and irrelevant data concerning his mental health in considering his application

and to a civil court during a public hearing. The Court found a violation of Article 8.

225

Eur. Court of HR, Aycaguer v France, judgment of 22 June 2017, application no. 8806/12. The

be included in the national computerised DNA database (FNAEG). The Court found a violation
of Article 8, noting that no appropriate action had been taken on the reservation by the
Constitutional Court regarding the constitutionality of FNAEG and that there was no provision for
differentiating the period of storage depending on the nature and gravity of the offences
committed. Secondly, the Court ruled that the regulations on the storage of DNA profiles in the
FNAEG did not provide the data subjects with sufficient protection.

235

Eur. Court of HR, Dagregorio and Mosconi v. France, judgment of 22 June 2017, application no.
65714/11. The applicants considered that their conviction for refusing to undergo biological
testing amounted to a disproportionate interference with their right to respect for their private life
and their physical integrity. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction
with Article 8, they alleged discrimination, emphasising that only individuals suspected or
convicted of a certain category of criminal offence were subject to biological testing. Under Article
11 (freedom of assembly and association), they alleged that there has been a violation of their
trade-union freedom. Lastly, under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 11, they submitted that
the authorities should not have treated them in the same way as the persons targeted by the
legislature when the FNAEG had been set up. The Court unanimously declared the application
inadmissible.

237

Eur. Court of HR, Y.G. v. Russia, judgment of 30 August 2022, application no 8647/12. The
applicant alleged that his personal data including data concerning health data was unlawfully
disclosed through a database being sold in a market. The Court found a violation of Article 8.

356

Identity

Eur. Court of HR, Ciubotaru v. Moldova, judgment of 27 April 2010, application no. 27138/04.
The applicant complains under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for

register his Romanian ethnic identity in his identity papers.

137

Eur. Court of Hr, Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, judgement of 14 January 2020, application
no. 41288/15. The case concerned two young men in a relationship which posted a photograph
of the couple kissing on Facebook, thing that led to hundreds of online hate comments and
threads. Both the prosecuting authorities and the courts refused to launch a pre-trial investigation
for incitement to hatred and violence against homosexuals. The Court concluded that that there
had been a violation of Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention and
violation of the Article 13.

289

12

Eur. Court of HR, Hudorovic and others v. Slovenia, judgement of 10 March 2020, application
nos. 24816/14 and 25140/14. The case concerned complaints by the applicants, who are all
Slovenian nationals of Roma origin, about an alleged lack of access to drinking water and
sanitation, taking into consideration their lifestyle and minority status. The Court found that the
authorities had taken positive steps to provide them with adequate access to safe drinking water
therefore there had been no violation of Article 8.

297

Eur. Court of HR, Y.T. v. Bulgaria, judgement of 09 July 2020, application number 4171/16. The
case concerned a transsexual (Y.T.) who had taken steps to change his physical appearance
and whose request for (female to male) gender reassignment had been refused by the Bulgarian
courts. The Court concluded that the domestic authorities

308

Eur. Court of HR, Rana v. Hungary, judgement of 16 July 2020, application number 40888/17.
The case concerned a transgender man from Iran who had obtained asylum in Hungary but could
not legally change his gender and name in that country. The Court concluded that a fair balance

life owing to the refusal to give him access to the legal gender recognition procedure.

309

Information Concerning Professional Activities

Eur. Court of HR, Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, application no.
13710/88. The applicant complained about the search of his office in course of criminal
proceedings against a third party.

56

Eur. Court of HR. Michaud v. France, judgment of 6 December 2012, application no. 12323/11.
The applicant alleged that the information protected by lawyer client privilege is particularly

the meaning of Article 8.

168

Eur. Court of HR. Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg, judgment of 18 April 2013,
application no. 26419/10. The applicant argued that the search and seizure operation carried out

ized that the interference
had been in accordance with the law and had pursued several legitimate aims but ruled that

171

Eur. Court of HR. Case Yuditskaya and others v. Russia, judgment of 12 February 2015,
application no. 5678/06. The applicants alleged, in particular, that there had been no grounds for
conducting a search of the premises of their law firm and seizing their computers. The Court
concluded that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

183

Eur. Court of HR. Case of M.N. and Others v. San Marino, judgement of 7 July 2015, application
no. 28005/12. The applicants complained about the decision ordering the seizure of banking
documents relating to them, alleging that they did not have effective access to court to complain
about it and that it interfered with their private life and correspondence.

187

13

Eur. Court of HR. Case of Sõro v. Estonia, judgment of 3 September 2015, application no.
22588/08. The applicant alleged that the publication, thirteen years after the restoration of
Estonian independence, of information about his service in the former State security
organisations (KGB) had violated his right to respect for his private life. The Court rules that such
a passage of time must have decreased any threat the applicant could have initially posed to the
new democratic system. The Court concluded t
life was subject to a disproportionate interference.

189

Eur. Court of HR, G.S.B. v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 December 2015, application no.
28601/11. The case co
account details in connection with an administrative cooperation agreement between Switzerland
and the USA. The Court noted that the applicant had had access to several effective and genuine
procedural safeguards in order to contest the transmission of his bank details and to secure
protection against arbitrary implementation of agreements concluded between Switzerland and
the US.

197

Eur. Court of HR, Breyer v. Germany, judgment of 30 January 2020, application no.
50001/12.The case concerned the storage of pre-
telecommunications companies. The court concluded that Germany had not overstepped the

291

Eur. Court of HR, Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, judgement of 25 June 2020, application number

from practising law for one year, then disbarred because of statements he had made about police
brutality and the functioning of the judicial system in the country.

306

Eur. Court of HR, Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan, judgement of 16 July 2020, application
no. 68817/14. The case concerned the detention of human-rights defenders for the purpose of
silencing and punishing them for their NGO activities. The court concluded that there has been
violation of the Convention.

311

Eur. Court of HR, Särgava v. Estonia, judgment of 16 November 2021, application no 698/19.
Violation of Article 8 due to the search of a lawyer's office, home and vehicle and the obtaining
of information from his computer and telephone. The Court decided that the information retrieved
from the computer and mobile phone was covered by the lawyer's professional secrecy and its
seizure was in violation of Article 8.

330

Eur. Court of HR, Naumenko and Sia Rix Shipping v. Latvia, judgment of 23 June 2022,
application No 50805/14. A search of an applicant's business premises and the seizure of a large
quantity of documents and electronic files during an unannounced operation by the Competition
Authority is legal if this interference with the right to privacy is justified.

353

Interception of Communications

Eur. Court of HR, Malone v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, application no.
8691/79. Interception of postal and telephone communications and release of information

general context of criminal investigation.

46

14

Eur. Court of HR, Kruslin v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, application no. 11801/85, and
Eur. Court of HR, Huvig v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, application no. 11105/84. The
applicants complained about the telephone tapping carried out by senior police officer under
warrant issued by investigating judge.

53

Eur. Court of HR, Halford v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 25 June 1997, application no.
20605/92. The applicant complains that telephone calls made from her office in Merseyside
Police Headquarters had been intercepted and that she had not had available to her any effective
remedy for this complaint.

67

Eur. Court of HR, Lambert v. France, judgment of 24 August 1998, application no. 23618/94.
Judgment whereby Court of Cassation refused a person locus standi to complain of interception

been tapped.

73

Eur. Court of HR, Amann v. Switzerland, judgment of 16 February 2000, application no.
27798/95. The applicant complained that the interception of the telephone call and the creation

x had violated Article 8.

75

Eur. Court of HR, Cotlet v. Romania, judgment of 3 June 2003, application no. 38565/97. The
applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention of interference with his correspondence
with the Convention institutions. He also complained of a violation of his right of individual
application, as guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention.

91

Eur. Court of HR, Matwiejczuk v. Poland, judgment of 2 December 2003, application no.
37641/97 (No violation of Article 34). The applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial
detention, the length of the criminal proceedings against him and that his letters were monitored
during his detention.

95

Eur. Court of HR, Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, judgment of 14 January 2005, application no. 92/03.
The applicant complained that the proceedings resulting in his conviction had been unfair and
that his right to respect for his correspondence had been infringed.

99

Eur. Court of HR, Copland v. United Kingdom, judgment of 3 April 2007, application no.
elephone, e-

112

Eur. Court HR, Liberty and others v. United Kingdom, judgment of 1 July 2008, application no.
58243/00. Interception by the Ministry of Defence of the external communications of civil-liberties
organisations.

116

Eur. Court of HR, Iordachi and others v. Moldova, judgment of 14 September 2009, application
no. 25198/02. Respect for private life Status of potential victims; lack of clarity or adequate
safeguards in legislation on interception of communications: violation.

130

Eur. Court of HR, Kennedy v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 18 May 2010, application no.
26839/05. The applicant complains under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and
for correspondence), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)
about the alleged interception of his communications, the unfair hearing before the IPT, and
having been denied an effective remedy.

140

15

Eur. Court of HR, Brito Ferrinho Bexiga Villa-Nova v. Portugal, judgment of 1 December 2015,
application no. 69436/10. The case concerned access to the bank accounts of a lawyer charged

to an interference with her right to respect for professional confidentiality, which fell within the
scope of private life.

195

Eur. Court of HR, Figueiredo Teixeira v. Andorra, judgment of 8 November 2016, application no.
72384/14. The case concerned the storage and communication to the judicial authority of data
from telephone calls made by the applicant, who was suspected of the serious offence of drug
trafficking. The Court found in particular that since the impugned interference was prescribed in
national law, a person holding a prepaid mobile phone card could reasonably have expected
those provisions to be applied in his case. Furthermore, the criminal procedure provided a wide
range of safeguards against arbitrary actions. Hence, no violation of Article 8 was found.

223

Eur. Court of HR, Terrazzoni v. France, judgment of 29 June 2017, application no. 33242/12.
The case concerned the use, in the context of disciplinary proceedings against a judge, of the
transcript of a telephone conversation that had been intercepted by chance in criminal
proceedings in which the judge had not been involved. The Court found no violation of Article 8,
as the interference complained of had been in accordance with the law and had been aimed at
establishing the truth both in relation to the initial criminal proceedings against F.L. and in relation
to the ancillary criminal proceedings concerning the judge. The Court concluded that there had
been effective scrutiny capable of limiting the interference in question to what was necessary in
a democratic society.

241

Eur. Court of HR, Mustafa Sezgin Tanrikulu v Turkey, judgment of 18 July 2017, application no.

interception of his communications had been unlawful and in violation of Article 8 of the
Convention because of its indiscriminate nature. The Court found a violation of Article 8.

243

Eur Court of HR, Big Brother Watch v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 September 2018,
applications nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15, concerned complaints by journalists and
rights organisations about three different surveillance regimes: (1) the bulk interception of
communications; (2) intelligence sharing with foreign governments; and (3) the obtaining of
communications data from communications service providers. The bulk interception regime
violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and
family life/communications) as there was insufficient oversight both of the selection of Internet
bearers for interception and the filtering, search and selection of intercepted communications for
examination, and the
examination were inadequate. In reaching this conclusion, the Court found that the operation of
a bulk interception regime did not in and of itself violate the Convention, but noted that such a
regime had to respect criteria set down in its case-law.

261

Eur. Court of HR, Hambardzumyan v. Arménia, judgment of 5 December 2019, application no.
at the police had not had a valid court

warrant to place her under secret surveillance during a criminal investigation. The Court
concluded that the warrant had not listed the specific measures that were to be carried out
against the applicant. Overall, the surveillance measure had not had sufficient judicial
supervision and had been in conflict with the Convention.

287

16

Eur. Court of HR, Vasil Vasilev v. Bulgaria, judgment of 16 November 2021, application No
7610/15. The case concerns the interception, recording and transcription of a telephone
conversation in 2010 between the applicant and one of his clients, a former Minister of Defence,
who was being covertly monitored in connection with a criminal case. Mr Vasilev complained to
the prosecuting authorities and brought a claim for damages, arguing that the conversation was
covered by lawyer-client privilege and that its recording and transcript should have been
destroyed.

331

Eur. Court of HR, Nuh Uzun v. Turkey, judgment of 29 May 2022, application no 49341/18. The

The Court found that the uploading of the correspondence of remand and convicted prisoners
onto the UYAP server stemmed directly and specifically from an instruction issued by the Ministry
of Justice on 10 October 2016 and reissued on 1 March 2017. It noted that the instruction had
been addressed to the public prosecutors and prison authorities. The documents in question
were therefore unpublished internal documents which as a matter of principle did not have
binding force. In t -making

-
or their private life and

of Article 8 of the Convention.

346

Photos

Eur. Court of HR, Von Hannover v. Germany, judgment of 24 June 2004, application no.

for photos taken of public figures in public spaces.

96

Eur. Court of HR, Sciacca v. Italy, judgment of 11 January 2005, application no. 50774/99. The
applicant submits that the dissemination of the photograph at a press conference organised by

er private
life.

97

Eur. Court of HR, Gaughran v. United Kingdom, judgment of 13 February 2020, application no.
45245/15.The case concerned a complaint about the indefinite retention of personal data (DNA
profile, fingerprints and photograph) of a man who had a spent conviction for driving with excess

failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests.

295

Private life at work

61496/08. The case concerned the decision of a private company to dismiss an employee after
monitoring his electronic communications and accessing their contents, and the alleged failure
of the domestic courts to protect his right to respect for his private life and correspondence. The
Court concluded that the national authorities ha
to respect for his private life and correspondence. They had consequently failed to strike a fair
balance between the interests at stake.

246

17

Eur. Court of HR, Libert v. France, judgment of 22 February 2018, application no. 588/13. The
case concerned the dismissal of an SNCF (French national railway company) employee after the
seizure of his work computer had revealed the storage of pornographic files and forged
certificates drawn up for third persons.

116

Eur. Court of HR, Vincent Del Campo v. Spain, judgment of 6 November 2018, application no.
25527/13 The case concerned a domestic judgement which named Mr Vicent Del Campo as
having harassed a work colleague, although the defendant in the case was actually his local
authority employer: violation of Article 8.

259

Eur. Court of HR, López Ribalda and Others v. Spain, judgment of 17 October 2019, application
nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13. The case concerned the decision of a private company to dismiss
five employees after monitoring them with both visible and hidden surveillance cameras. The
employees were not informed of the hidden cameras and had been caught on video helping co-
workers and customers steal items and stealing them themselves.

285

Processing of Personal Data by the Police

Eur. Court of HR, Perry v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 July 2003, application no.
63737/00 (violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Use of videotape by the Police for
identification and prosecution purposes.

94

Eur. Court of HR, Matheron v. France, judgment of 29 March 2005, application no. 57752/00.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for his private life)
that evidence was used against him that had been obtained by telephone tapping in separate
proceedings. Not being a party to those proceedings, he had been unable to contest their validity.

100

Eur. Court of HR, Turek v. Slovakia, judgment of 14 February 2006, application no. 57986/00.
The applicant complains about being registered as a collaborator with the former Czechoslovak
Communist Security Agency, the issuing of a security clearance to that effect and the dismissal
of his action challenging that registration.

104

Eur. Court of HR, Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, judgment of 6 June 2006,
application no 62332/00. The applicants complain about the storage of certain information about
them in Swedish Security Police files and the refusal to reveal the extent of the information
stored.

106

22427/04. The applicant complained that the records kept by the police and the publication in
the national press of the details of those records had had adverse effects on his private life within
the meaning of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). He further relied on Article 6
§ 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

118

Eur. Court of HR, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 4 December 2008,
applications nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04. The applicants complain under Articles 8 (right to
respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention about
the retention by the authorities of their fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles after their
acquittal or discharge.

120

18

Eur. Court of HR, B.B. v. France, Gardel v. France, M.B. v. France, judgments of 17 December
2009, applications nos. 5335/06, 16428/05, 22115/06. The applicants complain under Article 8
(right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence) of the European Convention
on Human Rights about their inclusion in the Sex Offender database and the retroactive
application of the legislation under which it was created.

134

Eur. Court of HR, Mikolajová v. Slovakia, judgment of 18 January 2011, application no 4479/03.
Disclosure of police decision stating that the applicant had committed an offence, even though
no criminal proceedings were ever brought.

144

Eur. Court of HR, Shimovolos v. Russia, judgment of 21 June 2011, application no. 30194/09.
Applicant complained about police listing and surveillance on his account of membership in a
human rights organisation.

151

Eur. Court of HR, Khelili v. Switzerland, judgment of 18 October 2011, application no. 16188/07.

her right to respect for private life.

154

Eur. Court of HR. M.M. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 November 2012, application no.
24029/07. The applicant complained about retention of caution on criminal record for life. The
Court ruled that the retention an
be regarded as having been in accordance with the law.

166

Eur. Court of HR. Brunet v France, judgment of 18 September 2014, application no. 21010/10.
The applicant complained about his registration in a recorded offences database after criminal

opportunity to ask the removal of his data. The retention could be regarded as a disproportionate

society. The State had overstepped its discretion to decide and thus violated Article 8.

180

Eur. Court of HR. Case of Zaichenko v. Ukraine, judgment of 26 February 2015, application no.
45797/09.. The applicant complained about his involuntary psychiatric confinement and the
unlawful collection of information about him by the police in that context. The Court concluded a
violation of Article 8.

186

Eur. Court of HR, Trabajo Rueda v. Spain, judgment of 30 May 2017, application no. 32600/12.
The applicant complained that the police seizure and inspection of his computer had amounted
to an interference with his right to respect for his private life and correspondence. The Court
deemed that the police seizure of the computer and inspection of the files which it contained,
without prior judicial authorisation, had not been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued

232

19

Eur. Court of HR, Benedik v. Slovenia, judgment of 24 April 2018, application no. 588/13. The

information associated with a dynamic Ip Address recorded by the Swiss law-enforcement
authorities during their monitoring of users of a certain file-sharing network. This led to the
applicant being identified after he had shared files over the network, including child pornography.
The Court found in particular that the legal provision used by the police to obtain the subscriber
information associated with the dynamic Ip Address had not met the Convention standard of

from arbitrary interference, had no safeguards against abuse and no independent supervision of

Convention was sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage.

225

Eur. Court of HR, Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, judgment of 20 September 2018, application no.
68762/14. The case concerned the detention of a lawyer and human rights activist on charges
including illegal entrepreneurship, embezzlement and tax evasion.

264

Eur. Court of HR, Catt v. United Kingdom, judgement of 24 January 2019, application no.

lar that
the data held on the applicant concerned his political views and that such information required

had no history or prospect of committing acts of violence. While collecting the information on him
had been justified, retaining it had not, particularly owing to a lack of safeguards, such as time-
limits. There had therefore been a violation of the Convention.

270

Eur. Court of HR, Beghal v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 February 2019, application no.
4755/16. Power of border control officials to stop and question without suspicion or access to
lawyer: violation of article 8.

273

Eur. Court of HR, Visy v. Slovakia, judgment of 18 March 2019, application no. 70288/13. Re-
seizure of unlawfully seized materials five minutes after their restitution. Violation of Article 8, as
the re-seized materials contained business-related information and included legal advice
protected by lawyer-client privilege. As the domestic authorities had failed to provide relevant

-seizure, in
which respect he had not had the benefit of effective safeguards against arbitrariness and abuse,
the re-seizure could not be seen as having been proportionate to the legitimate aim it pursued,
and thus necessary in a democratic society.

275

Eur. Court of HR, Gaughran v. United Kingdom, judgment of 13 February 2020, application no.
45245/15.The case concerned a complaint about the indefinite retention of personal data (DNA
profile, fingerprints and photograph) of a man who had a spent conviction for driving with excess

failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests.

295

Eur. Court of HR, Z. v. Bulgaria, judgement of 28 May 2020, application no. 39257/17. The case

had been raped.

301

Eur. Court of HR, P.N. v. Germany, judgement of 11 June 2020, application no. 74440/17. The
case concerned a police order to collect information to identify the applicant, such as
photographs of his face and body, including possible tattoos, as well as finger and palm prints.

303

20

Eur. Court of HR, Pormes v. the Netherlands, judgement of 28 July 2020, application number

grant him a residence permit, despite him living in the Netherlands since he was almost four

316

Eur Court of HR, M.D. and Others v. Spain, judgment of 28 June 2022, application no. 36584/17.
The case concerned the compiling of files by the police in Catalonia on judges who had

including photographs, had been subsequently leaked to the press. The Court found in particular
that the mere existence of the police reports, which had not been compiled in accordance with
any law, had contravened the Convention. As for the investigation into the leak, the Court found
it to have been inadequate owing to the failure to interview a person crucial to the investigation,
the Senior Chief of Police of Barcelona. The Court consequently decided on a violation of Article
8 ECHR.

354

Surveillance Methods

Eur. Court of HR, Klass and others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, application no.
5029/71. Law authorising secret services to carry out secret monitoring of communications
(postal and telephone).

44

Eur. Court of HR, Rotaru v. Romania, judgment of 4 May 2000, application no. 28341/95. The
applicant complained of an infringement of his right to private life in that the Romanian
Intelligence Service held a file containing information on his private life and that it was impossible
to refute the untrue information.

78

Eur. Court of HR, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September 2001,
application no. 44787/98. The applicants complained about the use of covert listening devices to

the use of listening devices to obtain voice samples while they were at the police station.

81

Eur. Court of HR, Taylor-Sabori v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 2002, no.
47114/99. The applicant complained about the interception of pager messages by the police and
subsequent reference to them at the trial.

85

Eur. Court of HR, Allan v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 November 2002, application no.
48539/99. The applicant complained of use of covert audio and video surveillance within a prison
cell and the prison visiting area.

87

Eur. Court of HR, Wisse v. France, judgment of 20 December 2005, application no. 71611/01.
The applicants contend that the recording of their conversations in the prison visiting rooms
constituted interference with their right to respect for their private and family life.

103

Eur. Court of HR, Copland v. United Kingdom, judgment of 3 April 2007, application no.
62617/00, Complaint that, during the applica -

112

21

Eur. Court of HR, Bykov v. Russia, judgment of 10 March 2009, application no. 4378/02. The
applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Article 8 (right to respect for
private and family life) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human
Rights about the insuff -trial detention, the
use of a surveillance technique which was not accompanied by adequate safeguards against
possible abuses.

124

Eur. Court of HR, Uzun v. Germany, judgment of 2 September 2010, application no. 35623/05.
Applicant complained about information obtained on him via GPS surveillance. The Court
considered that adequate and effective safeguards against abuse had been in place.

139

The case principally concerned the secret surveillance of telephone conversations of a drug
trafficking suspect. The Court found in particular that Croatian law, as interpreted by the national

measures and it did not in practice provide sufficient
safeguards against possible abuse.

182

Eur. Court of HR. R.E v. United Kingdom, judgment of 27 October 2015, application no.
62498/11. Covert surveillance of a
since these consultations benefit from a strengthened protection. However, consultations with
the person appointed to assist the detainee, as a vulnerable person, following his arrest do not
benefit from this protection; Article 8 is not violated on this grievance.

193

Eur. Court of HR. Roman Zakharov v. Russia, judgment of 4 December 2015, application no.
47143/06. The applicant is a user of mobile phone complaining of system of secret surveillance
without effective domestic remedies. Although the applicant cannot prove that his own
conversations have been surveyed, the mere existence of the legislation allowing it restricts the
liberty of communicating. The Court concluded that domestic legal provisions governing the
interception of communications did not provide adequate and effective guarantees and thus
violate Article 8.

200

Eur. Court of HR. Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, judgment of 12 January 2016, application no.
37138/14. The Court recognised that situations of extreme urgency in the fight against terrorism
could arise in which a requirement for prior judicial control would run the risk of losing precious
time. However, judges must be able to control surveillance measures post factum. The Court
decided that the domestic law did not provide an effective judicial-control mechanism and did not
provide sufficiently precise, effective and comprehensive safeguards on the ordering, execution
and potential redressing of surveillance measures.

203

no. 34148/07. The applicants complained that covert interception of their mobile phone
conversations, which were subsequently used during their trial, had not been carried out in
compliance with Article 8 of the Convention. The Court found a violation of Article 8.

208

Eur. Court of HR, Cevat Özel v. Turkey, judgment of 7 June 2016, application no. 19602/06. The
applicant complained about the surveillance of his communications and the absence of
notification. The Court recognised that the measures of surveillance could be lawful but the
absence of notification impeded the applicant to ensure his rights. The Court thus concluded the
violation of Article 8.

210

22

The applicant alleged that the monitoring of his communications and those of his wife and two
children had been arbitrary and illegal, that his professional and personal reputation had been
damaged as a result, and complained that he and his family had been denied the right of access
to a court because of the failure of the Ministry of Justice to send him the documents concerning
the phone-tapping operations. The Court found no violation of Article 8 as regards the telephone
tapping in connection with the criminal investigation, but found a violation as regards the use in
disciplinary proceedings of the information obtained by means of telephone tapping, and of
Article 13 (right to effective remedy).

213

Eur. Court of HR, Versini-Campinchi and Crasnianski v. France, judgment of 16 June 2016,
application no. 49176/11. The case concerned the interception, transcription and use in
disciplinary proceedings against her of conversations which the applicant, who is a lawyer, had
had with one of her clients. The Court held that as the transcription of the conversation between
the applicant and her client had been based on the fact that the contents could give rise to the
presumption that the applicant had herself committed an offence, and the domestic courts had

that the former was the latt

216

Eur. Court of HR, Vukota-
61838/10. The applicant complained that the surveillance by the insurance company had been
in breach of her right to respect for private life, and that it should not have been admitted in the
proceedings that resulted in the reduction of her disability pension. The Court held that the secret

had not been prescribed by law, it had failed to regulate with clarity when and for how long
surveillance could be conducted, and how data obtained by surveillance should be stored and
accessed. There had therefore been a violation of Article 8.

219

applicant complained that the secret surveillance of his telephone conversations, subsequently
used as evidence during his trial, had been in violation of the guarantees of Articles 8 and 6 § 1
of the Convention. The Court found a violation of Article 8.

221

case concerned a complaint about entrapment, secret surveillance measures and the non-
disclosure and use of the evidence t
corruption in 2009. His conviction was essentially based on evidence obtained via telephone
tapping following a covert operation involving an informant. The Court found that there had been
no viol
the same Article with as concerned the non-disclosure of certain evidence in the criminal

procedure for ordering

229

Eur. Court of HR, Ben Faiza v. France, judgment of 08 February 2018, application no. 31446/12.
The case concerns surveillance measures taken against Mohamed Ben Faiza (geolocation of

involvement in drug-trafficking offences.

250

23

Eur. Court of HR, Centrum FÖR RÄTTVISA v. SWEDEN, judgment of 19 June 2018, application
no. 35252/08. The case concerned a complaint brought by a public interest law firm alleging that
legislation permitting the bulk interception of electronic signals in Sweden for foreign intelligence
purposes breached its privacy rights.

257

Eur. Court of HR, Hambardzumyan v. Arménia, judgment of 5 December 2019, application no.
hat the police had not had a valid court

warrant to place her under secret surveillance during a criminal investigation. The Court
concluded that the warrant had not listed the specific measures that were to be carried out
against the applicant. Overall, the surveillance measure had not had sufficient judicial
supervision and had been in conflict with the Convention.

287

Eur. Court of HR, Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 11 January 2022, application
no. 70078/12. The case concerned secret surveillance and the system of retention and
subsequent accessing of communications data in Bulgaria. The Court found a violation of Article
8 in respect of secret surveillance and a violation of Article 8 in respect of retention and accessing
of communication data.

339

carried out in 2005 and 2006 by the Slovak Intelligence Service and the intelligence material
obtained by it. The Court, citing its findings in substantially the same situation of the applicant in
Zoltán Varga v. Slovakia, highlighted the deficiencies in the applicable rules and procedures and
the lack of external oversight of both the SIS operation and the retention by the SIS of some of
the resulting data, and found that both had thus not been in accordance with the law for the
Convention purposes.

351

Video Surveillance

Eur. Court of HR, Allan v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 November 2002, application no.
48539/99. The applicant complained of use of covert audio and video surveillance within a prison
cell and the prison visiting area.

87

Eur. Court HR, Köpke v. Germany, judgment of 5 October 2010, application no 420/07. Case
concerning video surveillance of supermarket cashier suspected of theft declared

2017, application no. 70838/13. The case concerned an invasion of privacy complaint by two
matics, after video surveillance had

been installed in areas where they taught. The domestic courts rejected a compensation claim,
finding that the question of private life had not been at issue as the auditoriums where the two
professors taught were public areas and that the data collected by the video surveillance was
also thus not personal data. The Court found that the camera surveillance had not been in
accordance with the law and that there had been a violation of Article 8.

142

24

application no. 70838/13. The case concerned an invasion of privacy complaint by two
video surveillance had

been installed in areas where they taught. The domestic courts rejected a compensation claim,
finding that the question of private life had not been at issue as the auditoriums where the two
professors taught were public areas and that the data collected by the video surveillance was
also thus not personal data. The Court found that the camera surveillance had not been in
accordance with the law and that there had been a violation of Article 8.

249

Eur. Court of HR, López Ribalda and Others v. Spain, judgment of 17 October 2019, application
nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13. The case concerned the decision of a private company to dismiss
five employees after monitoring them with both visible and hidden surveillance cameras. The
employees were not informed of the hidden cameras and had been caught on video helping co-
workers and customers steal items and stealing them themselves. The Court concluded that the
domestic courts had not exceeded their power of dis
the monitoring proportionate and legitimate.

285

Eur. Court of HR, Izmestyev v. Russia, judgment of 27 August 2019, application no.74141/10.
The case concerned video surveillance of offenders serving a sentence of imprisonment.

280

Key Article 8 Case-Law

Eur. Court of HR, M.A. v. Denmark, judgment of 9 July 2021, application no 6697/18. The case
concerned a delay of three
to family reunification owing to his temporary protection status. The Court found in particular that,

h of the wait
to be able to avail of his right to family reunification, the authorities had failed to strike a fair
balance between the needs of the applicant individually and the economic well-being of the
country in their Assessment of his application to be reunited with his wife.

323

Eur. Court of HR, Polat v. Austria, judgment of 20 July 2021, application no 12886/16. The case
concerned a post-
Court found in particular that the Austrian authorities had failed to balance the needs of science

-mortem
against her will and against her religious convictions, and examining the issue later in the courts.
It also found that the failure to disclose to the applicant information regarding the extent of the
examination given her specific circumstances had been a violation of her rights.

326

Eur Court of HR, Gumenyuk and others v. Ukraine, judgment of 22 July 2021, application no
11423/19. The case concerned judges of the former Supreme Court of Ukraine who were
prevented from exercising their functions, without having ever been formally dismissed, because
of judicial reform and legislative amendments that took place in 2016. The Court found that the
right of access to a court was a fundamental procedural right for the protection of members of
the judiciary, and the applicants should, in principle, have been able to go to court with their
allegations. In addition, the Court considered that being prevented from exercising as Supreme
Court judges since December 2017, despite a Constitutional Court ruling in their favour, had
significantly affected their private lives and constituted an interference with their right to respect
for private life.

328

25

Eur. Court of HR, Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway, judgment of 10 December 2021, application no
15379/16.The case concerned the decision by the Norwegian authorities to allow the adoption

parents, but wished for him to maintain his cultural and religious roots. The Court decided to

integral part of her complaint under Article 8, as interpreted and applied in the light of Article 9
(freedom of religion). Indeed, there had been shortcomings in the overall decision-making

mutual interest in maintaining ties.

336

Eur. Court of HR, OOO Memo v. Russia, judgment of 15 March 2022, application no 2840/10.
The case concerned a civil defamation suit brought by the Volgograd Region Authority against a
media company which OOO Memo owned. The Court found in particular that although civil
defamation proceedings were open to private or public companies to protect their reputation in
the marketplace, this could not be the case for a large, taxpayer-funded, executive body like the
plaintiff in this case. The proceedings and the consequent interference had therefore not had a

that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention
on Human Rights.

341

Eur. Court of HR, C.E. and Others v. France, judgment of 24 March 2022, application nos.
29775/18 and 29693/19. The judgment concerned two cases. The first related to the rejection by
the domestic courts of an application for f

to a matter of common knowledge (acte de notoriété) recognising a legal parent-child
relationship, on t

unanimously, that there had been: no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family
life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

343