rassegna | 2023-05-11 · NEW: ![]() |
Rassegna diritti umani ECHR European Court of Human Rights |
abstract:
Strasbourg, December 2022
T-PD(2023)1
CASE LAW OF THE
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONCERNING THE PROTECTION
OF PERSONAL DATA
Consiglio d'Europa
analisi:
-
index:
Indice
- Thematic Table of Contents
- Access to Personal Data
- Balancing Data Protection with Freedom o
- Consent of the Data Subject
- Correspondence
- Health Data
- Identity
- Information Concerning Professional Acti
- Interception of Communications
- Photos
- Private life at work
- Processing of Personal Data by the Polic
- Surveillance Methods
- Video Surveillance
- Key Article 8 Case-Law
testo:
T
This compilation was prepared by the Data Protection Unit of the Council of Europe T judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int). Strasbourg, December 2022 T-PD(2023)1 CASE LAW OF THE CONCERNING THE PROTECTION 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 Eur. Court of HR, Gaskin v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, application no. Eur. Court of HR, McMichael v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, application Eur. Court of HR, M.G v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 September 2002, application no. Eur. Court of HR, Odièvre v. France, judgment of 13 February 2003, application no. 42326/98. Eur. Court of HR, K.H. and others v. Slovakia, judgment of 28 April 2009, application no. Eur. Court of HR, Tsourlakis v. Greece, judgment of 15 October 2009, application no. 50796/07. Eur. Court of HR, Haralambie v. Romania, judgment of 27 October 2009, application no. Eur. Court of HR, Dalea v. France, judgment of 2 February 2010, application 58243/00. Inability . Eur. Court of HR. M.K. v. France, judgment of 18 April 2013, application no. 19522/09. The Court Eur. Court of HR, Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 11 January 2022, application 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. 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 97 expression. 147 Eur. Court of HR, Mosley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 May 2011, application no. 148 Eur. Court of HR, Avram and Others v. Moldova, judgment of 05 July 2011, application no. 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 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, working for them, on the one hand, and the public interest in ensuring efficient inspection for tax 169 , judgment of 16 July 2013, The respondent State had complied with its obligation to strike a balance between the rights 174 Eur. Court of HR. Haldimann and Others v Switzerland, judgment of 24 February 2015, and his voice. The Court considered that the interference in the private life of the broker, who 184 Eur. Court of HR. Bremner v. Turkey, judgment of 13 October 2015, application no. 37428/06. tified by general- 191 Eur. Court of HR, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland, judgment of 27 because it had been in accordance with the law, it had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting freedom of expression. However, the Court did find a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair 239 5 Eur. Court of HR, Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan, judgment of 10 January 2019, application without her knowledge of her and her then boyfriend was posted on the Internet. Around the 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 . 299 Eur. Court of HR, Hurbain v. Belgium, judgment of 22 June 2021, application no 57292/16. The he had not only served his sentence after a final conviction but had also been rehabilitated. It Belgian -law. The Court of Appeal had, in particular, considered the harm sustained 318 Eur. Court of HR, Hájovský v. Slovakia, judgment of 1 July 2021, application no 7796/16. The 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 334 Eur. Court of HR, Biancardi v. Italy, judgment of 25 November 2021, application no 77419/16. article reporting on a fight in a restaurant, giving details on the related criminal proceedings. The search engine providers could be obliged to de-index material but also administrators of 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 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 - 348 Consent of the Data Subject Eur. Court of HR, Murray v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1994, application no. 58 Eur. Court of HR, K.U. v. Finland, judgment of 2 December 2008, application no. 2872/02. The 119 7 Eur. Court of HR, E.S. v. Sweden, judgment of 21 June 2012, application no. 5786/08. Sweden 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 - 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 197 Eur. Court of HR, Y.Y. v. Russia, judgment of 23 February 2016, application no. 40378/06. The 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 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 282 Eur. Court of HR, Omorefe v. Spain, judgement of 23 June 2020, application number 69339/16. 304 Correspondence Eur. Court of HR, Malone v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, application no. general context of criminal investigation. 46 8 Eur. Court of HR, Amann v. Switzerland, judgment of 16 February 2000, application no. 75 Eur. Court of HR, Cotlet v. Romania, judgment of 3 June 2003, application no. 38565/97. The 91 Eur. Court of HR, Matwiejczuk v. Poland, judgment of 2 December 2003, application no. 95 Eur. Court of HR, Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, judgment of 14 January 2005, application no. 92/03. 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. 128 Eur. Court of HR, Kennedy v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 18 May 2010, application no. 140 Eur. Court of HR. Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others v. Norway, judgment of 14 March 2013, working for them, on the one hand, and the public interest in ensuring efficient inspection for tax 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 243 9 Eur. Court of HR Buturuga v. Romania, judgment of 11 February 2020, application no. 56867/15. 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 - disclosure of his telephone conversation, there was no evidence that it had been affected to such 348 DNA Database Eur. Court of HR, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 4 December 2008, 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 272 Eur. Court of HR, Trajkovski and Chipovski v. North Macedonia, judgment of 13 February 2020, 296 GPS Data Eur. Court of HR, Uzun v. Germany, judgment of 2 September 2010, application no. 35623/05. 346 10 Health Data Eur. Court of HR, Z. v. Finland, judgment of 25 February 1997, application no. 22009/93. The confidentiality of the medical data concerned; the publication of her identity and HIV infection in 64 Eur. Court of HR, Anne-Marie Andersson v. Sweden, judgment of 27 August 1997, application 69 Eur. Court of HR, M.S. v. Sweden, judgment of 27 August 1997, application no. 20837/92. The 71 Eur. Court of HR, L.L. v. France, judgment of 10 October 2006, application no. 7508/02. The 110 Eur. Court of HR, I. v. Finland, judgment of 3 April 2007, application no. 20511/03, Complaint the district health authority had failed to provide adequate safeguards against unauthorised 114 Eur. Court of HR, Szuluk v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 2 June 2009, application no. 128 Eur. Court of HR. Mitkus v. Latvia, judgment of 2 October 2012 application no. 7259/03. The 162 Eur. Court of HR, Avilkina and Others v. Russia, judgment of 6 June 2013, application no. information without 173 Eur. Court of HR. Radu v. the Republic of Moldova, judgment of 15 April 2014, application no. 96 11 Eur. Court of HR. L.H. v Latvia, judgment of 29 April 2014, application no. 52019/07. The 177 Eur. Court of HR, Surikov v. Ukraine, judgment of 26 January 2017, application no. 42788/06. 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 235 Eur. Court of HR, Dagregorio and Mosconi v. France, judgment of 22 June 2017, application no. 237 Eur. Court of HR, Y.G. v. Russia, judgment of 30 August 2022, application no 8647/12. The 356 Identity Eur. Court of HR, Ciubotaru v. Moldova, judgment of 27 April 2010, application no. 27138/04. 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 289 12 Eur. Court of HR, Hudorovic and others v. Slovenia, judgement of 10 March 2020, application 297 Eur. Court of HR, Y.T. v. Bulgaria, judgement of 09 July 2020, application number 4171/16. The 308 Eur. Court of HR, Rana v. Hungary, judgement of 16 July 2020, application number 40888/17. 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. 56 Eur. Court of HR. Michaud v. France, judgment of 6 December 2012, application no. 12323/11. the meaning of Article 8. 168 Eur. Court of HR. Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg, judgment of 18 April 2013, ized that the interference 171 Eur. Court of HR. Case Yuditskaya and others v. Russia, judgment of 12 February 2015, 183 Eur. Court of HR. Case of M.N. and Others v. San Marino, judgement of 7 July 2015, application 187 13 Eur. Court of HR. Case of Sõro v. Estonia, judgment of 3 September 2015, application no. 189 Eur. Court of HR, G.S.B. v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 December 2015, application no. 197 Eur. Court of HR, Breyer v. Germany, judgment of 30 January 2020, application no. 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 306 Eur. Court of HR, Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan, judgement of 16 July 2020, application 311 Eur. Court of HR, Särgava v. Estonia, judgment of 16 November 2021, application no 698/19. 330 Eur. Court of HR, Naumenko and Sia Rix Shipping v. Latvia, judgment of 23 June 2022, 353 Interception of Communications Eur. Court of HR, Malone v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, application no. general context of criminal investigation. 46 14 Eur. Court of HR, Kruslin v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, application no. 11801/85, and 53 Eur. Court of HR, Halford v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 25 June 1997, application no. 67 Eur. Court of HR, Lambert v. France, judgment of 24 August 1998, application no. 23618/94. been tapped. 73 Eur. Court of HR, Amann v. Switzerland, judgment of 16 February 2000, application no. x had violated Article 8. 75 Eur. Court of HR, Cotlet v. Romania, judgment of 3 June 2003, application no. 38565/97. The 91 Eur. Court of HR, Matwiejczuk v. Poland, judgment of 2 December 2003, application no. 95 Eur. Court of HR, Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, judgment of 14 January 2005, application no. 92/03. 99 Eur. Court of HR, Copland v. United Kingdom, judgment of 3 April 2007, application no. 112 Eur. Court HR, Liberty and others v. United Kingdom, judgment of 1 July 2008, application no. 116 Eur. Court of HR, Iordachi and others v. Moldova, judgment of 14 September 2009, application 130 Eur. Court of HR, Kennedy v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 18 May 2010, application no. 140 15 Eur. Court of HR, Brito Ferrinho Bexiga Villa-Nova v. Portugal, judgment of 1 December 2015, to an interference with her right to respect for professional confidentiality, which fell within the 195 Eur. Court of HR, Figueiredo Teixeira v. Andorra, judgment of 8 November 2016, application no. 223 Eur. Court of HR, Terrazzoni v. France, judgment of 29 June 2017, application no. 33242/12. 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 243 Eur Court of HR, Big Brother Watch v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 September 2018, 261 Eur. Court of HR, Hambardzumyan v. Arménia, judgment of 5 December 2019, application no. warrant to place her under secret surveillance during a criminal investigation. The Court 287 16 Eur. Court of HR, Vasil Vasilev v. Bulgaria, judgment of 16 November 2021, application No 331 Eur. Court of HR, Nuh Uzun v. Turkey, judgment of 29 May 2022, application no 49341/18. The - 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 er private 97 Eur. Court of HR, Gaughran v. United Kingdom, judgment of 13 February 2020, application no. 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 246 17 Eur. Court of HR, Libert v. France, judgment of 22 February 2018, application no. 588/13. The 116 Eur. Court of HR, Vincent Del Campo v. Spain, judgment of 6 November 2018, application no. 259 Eur. Court of HR, López Ribalda and Others v. Spain, judgment of 17 October 2019, application 285 Processing of Personal Data by the Police Eur. Court of HR, Perry v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 July 2003, application no. 94 Eur. Court of HR, Matheron v. France, judgment of 29 March 2005, application no. 57752/00. 100 Eur. Court of HR, Turek v. Slovakia, judgment of 14 February 2006, application no. 57986/00. 104 Eur. Court of HR, Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, judgment of 6 June 2006, 106 22427/04. The applicant complained that the records kept by the police and the publication in 118 Eur. Court of HR, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 4 December 2008, 120 18 Eur. Court of HR, B.B. v. France, Gardel v. France, M.B. v. France, judgments of 17 December 134 Eur. Court of HR, Mikolajová v. Slovakia, judgment of 18 January 2011, application no 4479/03. 144 Eur. Court of HR, Shimovolos v. Russia, judgment of 21 June 2011, application no. 30194/09. 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. 166 Eur. Court of HR. Brunet v France, judgment of 18 September 2014, application no. 21010/10. 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. 186 Eur. Court of HR, Trabajo Rueda v. Spain, judgment of 30 May 2017, application no. 32600/12. 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 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. 264 Eur. Court of HR, Catt v. United Kingdom, judgement of 24 January 2019, application no. lar that had no history or prospect of committing acts of violence. While collecting the information on him 270 Eur. Court of HR, Beghal v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 February 2019, application no. 273 Eur. Court of HR, Visy v. Slovakia, judgment of 18 March 2019, application no. 70288/13. Re- -seizure, in 275 Eur. Court of HR, Gaughran v. United Kingdom, judgment of 13 February 2020, application no. 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 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. including photographs, had been subsequently leaked to the press. The Court found in particular 354 Surveillance Methods Eur. Court of HR, Klass and others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, application no. 44 Eur. Court of HR, Rotaru v. Romania, judgment of 4 May 2000, application no. 28341/95. The 78 Eur. Court of HR, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September 2001, 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. 85 Eur. Court of HR, Allan v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 November 2002, application no. 87 Eur. Court of HR, Wisse v. France, judgment of 20 December 2005, application no. 71611/01. 103 Eur. Court of HR, Copland v. United Kingdom, judgment of 3 April 2007, application no. 112 21 Eur. Court of HR, Bykov v. Russia, judgment of 10 March 2009, application no. 4378/02. The 124 Eur. Court of HR, Uzun v. Germany, judgment of 2 September 2010, application no. 35623/05. 139 The case principally concerned the secret surveillance of telephone conversations of a drug measures and it did not in practice provide sufficient 182 Eur. Court of HR. R.E v. United Kingdom, judgment of 27 October 2015, application no. 193 Eur. Court of HR. Roman Zakharov v. Russia, judgment of 4 December 2015, application no. 200 Eur. Court of HR. Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, judgment of 12 January 2016, application no. 203 no. 34148/07. The applicants complained that covert interception of their mobile phone 208 Eur. Court of HR, Cevat Özel v. Turkey, judgment of 7 June 2016, application no. 19602/06. The 210 22 The applicant alleged that the monitoring of his communications and those of his wife and two 213 Eur. Court of HR, Versini-Campinchi and Crasnianski v. France, judgment of 16 June 2016, that the former was the latt 216 Eur. Court of HR, Vukota- had not been prescribed by law, it had failed to regulate with clarity when and for how long 219 applicant complained that the secret surveillance of his telephone conversations, subsequently 221 case concerned a complaint about entrapment, secret surveillance measures and the non- procedure for ordering 229 Eur. Court of HR, Ben Faiza v. France, judgment of 08 February 2018, application no. 31446/12. involvement in drug-trafficking offences. 250 23 Eur. Court of HR, Centrum FÖR RÄTTVISA v. SWEDEN, judgment of 19 June 2018, application 257 Eur. Court of HR, Hambardzumyan v. Arménia, judgment of 5 December 2019, application no. warrant to place her under secret surveillance during a criminal investigation. The Court 287 Eur. Court of HR, Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 11 January 2022, application 339 carried out in 2005 and 2006 by the Slovak Intelligence Service and the intelligence material 351 Video Surveillance Eur. Court of HR, Allan v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 November 2002, application no. 87 Eur. Court HR, Köpke v. Germany, judgment of 5 October 2010, application no 420/07. Case 2017, application no. 70838/13. The case concerned an invasion of privacy complaint by two been installed in areas where they taught. The domestic courts rejected a compensation claim, 142 24 application no. 70838/13. The case concerned an invasion of privacy complaint by two been installed in areas where they taught. The domestic courts rejected a compensation claim, 249 Eur. Court of HR, López Ribalda and Others v. Spain, judgment of 17 October 2019, application 285 Eur. Court of HR, Izmestyev v. Russia, judgment of 27 August 2019, application no.74141/10. 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 h of the wait 323 Eur. Court of HR, Polat v. Austria, judgment of 20 July 2021, application no 12886/16. The case -mortem 326 Eur Court of HR, Gumenyuk and others v. Ukraine, judgment of 22 July 2021, application no 328 25 Eur. Court of HR, Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway, judgment of 10 December 2021, application no 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 mutual interest in maintaining ties. 336 Eur. Court of HR, OOO Memo v. Russia, judgment of 15 March 2022, application no 2840/10. that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention 341 Eur. Court of HR, C.E. and Others v. France, judgment of 24 March 2022, application nos. to a matter of common knowledge (acte de notoriété) recognising a legal parent-child unanimously, that there had been: no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family 343
(dataprotection@coe.int) and the European Court of Human Rights takes no responsibility for its content.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF PERSONAL DATA
of information kept in a secret police- suitability for
employment on a post of importance for national security.
10454/83. Refusal to grant former child in care unrestricted access to case records kept by social
services.
no. 16424/90. The applicant complained about the non-disclosure to them of some confidential
documents submitted in care proceedings
social service records
Applicant complained about her inability to find out about origins of her mother. The Court ruled
th obtained.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
applicant submits that the dissemination of the photograph at a press conference organised by
the public p
life.
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.
41588/05. Five women broadcast on national television in a sauna romp with police officers
should have received higher compensation.
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.
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
Assessment purposes, on the other hand. Therefore it is in accordance with the law.
guaranteed under Article 8 and 10 of the Convention.
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
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.
Television broadcast showing non-blurred images of an individual obtained using a hidden
interest. The State overpassed its margin of appreciation and violated Article 8.
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
uck a fair balance between the right to privacy and the right to
hearing within a reasonable time), due to the excessive length of the proceedings.
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
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
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
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
had thus found that the most effective way to ensure respect for his private life, without
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.
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
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.
-in-chief of an online
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
newspaper or journalistic archives accessible through the Internet, such as the applicant. It also
from the In
civil liability for not de-indexing information published on the Internet had been compatible with
Article 10 of the Convention.
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.
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
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.
did not fail to protect 14-year old girl after her stepfather attempted to film her naked.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
8691/79. Interception of postal and telephone communications and release of information
27798/95. The applicant complained that the interception of the telephone call and the creation
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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
Assessment purposes, on the other hand. Therefore it is in accordance with the law.
Convention because of its indiscriminate nature. The Court found a violation of Article 8.
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.
with territo
ected by the
an extent that it could count as a disproportionate interference with his rights guaranteed by
Article 8 of the Convention.
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.
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.
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.
Applicant complained about information obtained on him via GPS surveillance. The Court
considered that adequate and effective safeguards against abuse had been in place.
applicant complains about the seizure of medical records and their inclusion in investigation file
a court judgment given in those proceedings.
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.
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.
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.
tial patient records and that
access of medical data.
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.
applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that a newspaper article disclosed
information about his HIV infection and published his photo.
1585/09. The applicants claimed that the unjustified disclosure of confidential medical data
giving them any notice or opportunity to object or appeal is illegitimate.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
The applicant complains under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for
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.
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.
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
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
13710/88. The applicant complained about the search of his office in course of criminal
proceedings against a third party.
The applicant alleged that the information protected by lawyer client privilege is particularly
application no. 26419/10. The applicant argued that the search and seizure operation carried out
had been in accordance with the law and had pursued several legitimate aims but ruled that
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.
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.
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.
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.
50001/12.The case concerned the storage of pre-
telecommunications companies. The court concluded that Germany had not overstepped the
brutality and the functioning of the judicial system in the country.
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.
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.
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.
8691/79. Interception of postal and telephone communications and release of information
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.
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.
Judgment whereby Court of Cassation refused a person locus standi to complain of interception
27798/95. The applicant complained that the interception of the telephone call and the creation
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.
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.
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.
elephone, e-
58243/00. Interception by the Ministry of Defence of the external communications of civil-liberties
organisations.
no. 25198/02. Respect for private life Status of potential victims; lack of clarity or adequate
safeguards in legislation on interception of communications: violation.
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.
application no. 69436/10. The case concerned access to the bank accounts of a lawyer charged
scope of private life.
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.
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.
Convention because of its indiscriminate nature. The Court found a violation of Article 8.
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.
at the police had not had a valid 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.
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.
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
applicant submits that the dissemination of the photograph at a press conference organised by
life.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
63737/00 (violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Use of videotape by the Police for
identification and prosecution purposes.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Disclosure of police decision stating that the applicant had committed an offence, even though
no criminal proceedings were ever brought.
Applicant complained about police listing and surveillance on his account of membership in a
human rights organisation.
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.
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
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.
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
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
68762/14. The case concerned the detention of a lawyer and human rights activist on charges
including illegal entrepreneurship, embezzlement and tax evasion.
the data held on the applicant concerned his political views and that such information required
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.
4755/16. Power of border control officials to stop and question without suspicion or access to
lawyer: violation of article 8.
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
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.
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
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.
The case concerned the compiling of files by the police in Catalonia on judges who had
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.
5029/71. Law authorising secret services to carry out secret monitoring of communications
(postal and telephone).
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.
application no. 44787/98. The applicants complained about the use of covert listening devices to
47114/99. The applicant complained about the interception of pager messages by the police and
subsequent reference to them at the trial.
48539/99. The applicant complained of use of covert audio and video surveillance within a prison
cell and the prison visiting area.
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.
62617/00, Complaint that, during the applica -
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.
Applicant complained about information obtained on him via GPS surveillance. The Court
considered that adequate and effective safeguards against abuse had been in place.
trafficking suspect. The Court found in particular that Croatian law, as interpreted by the national
safeguards against possible abuse.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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
surveillance could be conducted, and how data obtained by surveillance should be stored and
accessed. There had therefore been a violation of Article 8.
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.
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
The case concerns surveillance measures taken against Mohamed Ben Faiza (geolocation of
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.
hat the police had not had a valid 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.
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.
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.
48539/99. The applicant complained of use of covert audio and video surveillance within a prison
cell and the prison visiting area.
concerning video surveillance of supermarket cashier suspected of theft declared
matics, after video surveillance had
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.
video surveillance had
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.
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.
The case concerned video surveillance of offenders serving a sentence of imprisonment.
concerned a delay of three
to family reunification owing to his temporary protection status. The Court found in particular that,
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.
concerned a post-
Court found in particular that the Austrian authorities had failed to balance the needs of science
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.
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.
15379/16.The case concerned the decision by the Norwegian authorities to allow the adoption
(freedom of religion). Indeed, there had been shortcomings in the overall decision-making
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
on Human Rights.
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
relationship, on t
life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Testo del 2023-05-11
Rassegna Giurisprudenza Diritti umani Echr
Download Pdf