Article 8 - Case List Flashcards
Copland v UK: Decision
Surveillance of a person’s work email was not justfied as there was no law to base these actions upon
There must be law that allows for such an intereference and this must be clear and predictable
Sheffield and Horsham v UK: Facts
Two applicants had had gender realignment from male to female. UK wouldn’t recognise new gender or allow transgender post-ops to marry
Sheffield and Horsham v UK: Decision
ECtHR recognised UK’s failure to update the law and recognised social acceptance of transsexualism and problem they encounter post-op
Lead to:
- Gender Recognition Act 2004
- Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013
Private Life: Botta v Italy
Private life includes a ‘person’s physical and psychological integrity’
Private Life: Pretty v UK
A person’s physical and psychological integrity will include: physical and social identity, gender identity, name and sexual orientation
Private Life: Peck v UK
A person’s physical and psychological integrity includes autonomy and dignity
Private Life: Dudgeon v UK
Private life includes sexual orientation and freedom including transgender men and women
Private Life: BB v UK
Private Life: Goodwin v UK
Barriers imposed on a transgender person violated their Art 8 rights
Private Life: Gillan and Quinton v UK: Facts
Police extended powers under s.44 Terrorism Act 2000 to stop and search any person without reasonable suspicion (which is usually required for stop and search)
Private Life: Gillan and Guinton: Decision
Power was used to search people on their way to an arms fair. Despite wide margin of appreciation issues of national security, the ECtHR believeed this way a disproportionate use of pwoer
Private Life: Halford v UK
No legal basis allowing the monitoring of the police telecommunication system therefore breach of Art 8
Private Life: MS v Sweden
Medical data is considered confidential for both adults and children who are considered Gillick competant
Private Life: Axon v Secretary of State for Health
If the child is considered Gillick competant then the parental righ to determine medical treatment is ended
Private Life: S and Marper v UK
The blanket retention of DNA profiles takenfrom innocent people posed a disproportionate interference with the right to private life
Under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 only people convicted of an offence will have fingerprints and DNA stored indefinately
Family Life: Gaskin v UK
Family Life: Schalk and Anor v Austria
Family Life: Lebbink v Netherlands
what consitutes a family depends on close family ties and is a matter of fact and degree
Family Life: Yousef v Netherlands
the decision of the state to remove a child into care must be done proportionately as there’s a wide margin of appreciation in these cases. However, child’s rights are paramount
Family Life: Johansen v Norway
court stated that particular weight should be attached to the best interests of the child, which may override those of the parent
Family Life: Agyarko and Ikuga v Secretary of State for the Home Department
both women wanted to stay in the UK to be with their family, but were here illegally
Only in exceptional circumstances would they be allowed to stay, ie. where there are insurmountable obstacles in the way
Family Life: Nasri v France
allowed to stay in France as that is where his family (parents and siblings) lived
Family Life: Wood v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
police taking and retianing photos of the protestors opposed to the arms trade was a violation
Family Life: R (T) v CC Greater Manchester and ors
a blanket disclosure of minor previous convictions during employment checks was disproportionatte under Art 8
Family Life: R (on application on F and Thompson) v SoS for the Home Dept: Facts
s.82 Sexual Offences Act 2003
a person who has been sentenced to more than 30 month imprisonment for a sex offence to notify police where they are living and any travel they do for the rest of their life
Family Life: R (on application on F and Thompson) v SoS for the Home Dept: Decision
UK SC held inability to review the requirement was disproportionate and violated Art 8
Family Life: AB v SoS for Justice
no justification to refuse a pre-op transgender woman who was held in a male prison in the right to move to a female prison
Violation
Home: Khatan v UK
the law treats owners and occupiers of property equally
ie. renters have the same rights as owners for example
Home: Connors v UK
ECtHR accepted that land where caravans were parked lawfully was the person’s home
Home: Price v Leeds City Council
caravans parked on a playing field were not a persons home
Home: Niemietz v Germany: Facts
police searched a lawyer’s office to try to identify a suspect. The search was part of ‘home’ and the lawyers private life
Home: Niemietz v Germany: Decision
‘it would be too restrictive to limit the notion of an ‘inner circle’ in which the individual may live his own personal life as he chooses and to exclude there from entirely the outside world not encompassed within that circle’
included work
Correspondance: Barbulescu v Romania
the employer was found to be in violation as their IT policy didn’t set out the extent to which their internet usage and online communications would be monitored
Correspondance: PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd
neither Art 8 or 10 have prioroty over the other and it is decided on a case by case basis
Correspondance: Campbell v MGN Ltd
the publication of photographs of her outside a rehabilitation clinic was a disproportionate interference with the rights to privacy, even though she was recieving treatment in the public domain
Correspondance: Murray v Express Newspapers PLC
the children of people who were famous should not expect to be photographed without their knowledge or consent if they has not publicised their children
