Article 8

Question 1

Restrictions on the right to private and family life

Answer 1

1. National security.
   Segerstedt-Wilberg v Sweden - assertation of NS won’t be automatically accepted by the courts. Art 8 was violated by security police storing personal data
   relating to the applicant’s political opinions and activities.
   SOS for the HD v AP - imposition of a 16hour curfew and the requirement that the appellant had to live 150 miles from his family was a violation Art8.
2. Public safety
   Ziya Uner v Netherlands - withdrawal of permanent residence following conviction for manslaughter was in accordance with domestic law, pursuant to a legitimate and and necessary in a democratic society.
3. Economic well-being
   Da Silva v Netherlands - applicant was refused of residency on the grounds that interest in staying near her daughter was outweighed by the interests of economic well-being of the country. court disagreed.
4. Prevention of crime and disorder
   S and Marper v UK the court stated that DNA retention policy was disproportionate, because this policy didn’t take into account the gravity of the offense suspected, and the presumption of innocence.
5. protection of health&morals
   Wainwright v UK
6. protection of rights and freedom of others
   Copland v UK - monitoring of the calls, Internet usage and e-mails by the public employer violated Art 8 rights.
   T v BBC - T sought an injunction to prevent BBC from identifying her in a program about adoption. the court concluded that her right to private and family life outweighed the BBC’s right to freedom of expression.

Question 2

Private life

Answer 2

1. physical, mental and moral integrity
2. surveillance by the state
3. searches of the persons
4. sexual orientation

Question 3

physical, mental and moral integrity (cases)

Answer 3

Costello-Roberts v UK (private life covered physical and moral integrity)
Von Hannover v Germany (+aspects relating to person’s identity)
Osman v UK (the state might owe positive obligations to offer protection to an individual against threats to bodily integrity)

Question 4

surveillance by the state (cases)

Answer 4

Khan v UK (use of surveillance devices is possible only within legal framework)
R (Wood) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolice (retention of police photographs of peaceful demonstrator violated Art 8)

Question 5

searches of the persons (cases)

Answer 5

Gillan and Quinton v UK

Wainwright v UK

Question 6

sexual orientation (cases)

Answer 6

Dudgeon v UK

ADT v UK

Question 7

Family life (cases)

Answer 7

Kroon v Netherlands 
Abdulaziz, Cabales&Balkandali v UK
Quila v SOS for the HD
Evans v UK
Dickson v UK
Aliev v Ukraine
E.L.H. and P.B.H. v UK

Question 8

Home (cases)

Answer 8

R (Coughlan) v N and E Devon HA
Manchester City Council v Pinnock
Hounslow LBC v Powell
Hatton v UK (quality of home life)

Question 9

Correspondence (cases)

Answer 9

Malone v UK
Foxley v UK
Halford v UK (calls from business premises)
Copland v UK (monitoring of e-mail by public employer)
Campbell v UK (prisoner’s correspondence)
R (on the application of Daly) - (blanket policy to search cells in absence of prisoners)