Article 8: Right to Private and Family Life Flashcards
What occurred in Copland v. UK?
There was no law that permitted surveillance of work Emails thus the interference was not in accordance with the law.
What was private life defined as in Botta v. Italy?
A person’s ‘psychological and physiological integrity’.
What happened in Marper v. UK?
Data retained on the police system, when there were no convictions, was a violation.
What does Article 17 outline?
Articles of the convention cannot be used to undermine other articles.
What does the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 state?
It is an offence to pursue a course of conduct amounting to harassment.
What does the Malicious Communications Act 1998 state?
It is an offence to send articles that convey grossly offensive messages to others.
What did Connors v. UK state with regards to the definition of home under Article 8?
A home can constitute land where caravans are parked legally.
Is the workplace considered ‘home’ for the purposes of Article 8? If so, give a case.
Yes. Niemietz v. Germany.
Discuss two advantages of Article 8.
Advantages:
- ECtHR has given a wide definition to ‘family life’ as it includes numerous formations - e.g. homosexual couples considered ‘family’ in Schalk and anor v. Austria - living instrument means this definition is changed in light of changing social attitudes - requisite of any effective law - Nasri v. France - even convicted rapist was allowed to remain with his family - though boyfriend was not enough to prevent deportation in Agyarko v. Home Secretary
- ‘Private life’ has been given a wide definition as it covers many aspects to ‘ensure the development of the personality of each individual in is relations’. - Article 8 therefore offers a lot of protection due to its wide jurisdiction - statutes such as the Data Protection Act and GDPR enhance this protection further - however, Marper v. UK identified that there is still need to scrutinise public bodies (DNA kept on system)
Discuss two disadvantages of Article 8.
Disadvantages:
- Article 8 fails to protect against state legislation that interferes with the right to a private life for instance the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 - interferes as it tips the balance in favour of the police - held to be a violation by the High Court - branded the ‘snoopers charter’ by critics - rightly so as it allows for arbitrary scrutiny of one’s correspondence by the government - heavily undermining Article 8’s purpose.
- Article 8 is regularly challenged by Article 10 as the press’s right to freedom of expression interferes with the individual’s right to privacy - court must balance the conflicting right - neither has priority - however the state has positive obligations to protect the right and keep the law under review under the ‘living instrument - ensuring Art 8 is not severely undermined by Art 10.
