Art 8: Right to family and private life

Question 1

Sheffield & Horsham v UK (1999)

Answer 1

Living Instrument Principle:
UK did not allow trans person to change their birth certificate. No violation of human rights but the ECtHR criticised the UK for it. The UK have since passed acts that allow trans people to change birth certificate.

Question 2

Copland v UK (2007)

Answer 2

In Accordance With Law:
Police were surveying Copland’s E-Mails and ECtHR said that it was not justified as there was no law to base these actions upon.

Question 3

Schalk & Another v Austria (2010)

Answer 3

Family Life:
Same sex couples were not categorised as Private Life. ECtHR told Austria to change it

Question 4

Johansen v Norway (1996)

Answer 4

Children:
Baby was taken into care by the state who decided to put the child up for adoption. ECtHR decided this was a violation as it was terminating any chance of the baby and parents being reunited.

Question 5

Agyarko & Ikuga v Secretary of State for the Home Dept (2015)

Answer 5

Removal from state:
2 women not from the UK wanted to marry 2 men from the UK. UK said that they were allowed to be deported as there was no reason for them not to continue their relationship outside the UK.

Question 6

Nasri v France (1996)

Answer 6

Removal from state:
A convicted rapist was allowed to stay in France as that was where his family was.

Question 7

Gillan & Quinton v UK (2010)

Answer 7

Private Life:
Police extended powers under terrorism act to stop and search anybody without reasonable suspicion. ECtHR believed that this was a disproportionate use of power.

Question 8

Halford v UK (1997)

Answer 8

Surveillance:
Police were listening to telephone calls of assistant chief constable. This was a breach of Art 8

Question 9

S & Marper v UK (2009)

Answer 9

Personal Data:
Applicants had their DNA taken at police station. They were found not guilty but their DNA was retained. ECtHR said that this was disproportionate.

Question 10

Campbell v MGN Ltd (2004)

Answer 10

Press Intrusion:
Naomi Campbell claimed newspapers should not have spoke about her attending a narcotics anonymous session. House of Lords agreed with her decision

Question 11

Wood v Commissioner of Police of the metropolis (2009)

Answer 11

UK examples of family and private life:
Police taking photos of protesters and retaining then was a violation of Art 8.

Question 12

Niemietz v Germany (1993)

Answer 12

Home:
Police searched the offices of a lawyer. ECtHR said that “Home” can include workplace.