Article 8: Private and family life, home and correspondence Flashcards
Von Hannover v Germany (No. 1) (2004)
Photos of Princess Caroline skiing or on a horse did not contribute to any “debate of general interest”, as there is no legitimate interest in the public knowing where she is and in her private life in general
Halford v UK (1997)
There can be a reasonable expectation of privacy for workplace calls, which engages A8
Interference here was not “in accordance with the law”, as there was no law governing interception of calls made outside the public network
Wainwright v UK (2006)
Highly obtrusive searches on visiting a prison breached A8, as there were other ways to deal with the prison’s drug problem
A13: Although the applicants had a remedy for the battery, they didn’t for the other parts of the obtrusive searches, which breached A13
Peck v UK (2003)
CCTV footage of a man used in a public campaign about crime - this breaches A8. There had been no attempt to contact him to gain consent, or to anonymise him
Wood v Met Police Commissioner (2009)
The police took and retained photos of a peaceful protestor. Taking the photos was ok, but retaining them was not proportionate and breached A8
Allette v Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home (2022)
It did not breach A8 rights of a care worker to oblige her to be vaccinated to work there, as this was proportionate in the circumstances
Niemietz v Germany (1992)
Searching a lawyer’s office to try and identify a suspect breached Article 8
MS v Sweden
Health data, DNA details and medical records are all included as “private life” for Article 8 ECHR
Barbulescu v Romania (2017)
Employers can only monitor their employees’ emails if they’ve informed them of this in advance, and employee understands the consequences of not complying with policies
S & Marper v UK (2009)
If a person is acquitted or proceedings are discontinued, their fingerprints and samples must be destroyed
This contradicted Criminal Jusice and Police Act 2001 and the House of Lords judgment
R (Razgar) v SSHD (2004)
If removing someone from the UK would have foreseeable health consequences, this can engage A8 (although in this case it was proportionate - it would only be in very drastic circumstances)
Uner v Netherlands: seven factors to consider in deportation cases
- Length of time in country
- Seriousness of offences
- Time elapsed since offences
- Family circumstances: if relationship, nationality of partner and whether (s)he knew at the time relationship begun
- Ages of children and their interests
- Seriousness of difficulties that may be experienced in receiving country
- Nature of ties with both receiving and expelling countries
Norris v Government of USA (No 2) (2010)
Extradition will almost always be proportionate to the aim it serves, unless there is some exceptionally compelling feature
H(H) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa (2012)
Extradition: A lengthy delay since the crimes were committed will reduce the public interest
R (The Countryside Alliance and Others) v A-G and Another (2007)
A ban on hunting does not engage Article 8
