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