Sheffield and Horsham v UK
‘Respect’ under A8.1 requires the state to not interfere
Niemietz v Germany
Private life includes physical and psychological integrity, sex life, gender, personal data, reputation, names, photos, workplace
Halford v UK
Office telephone conversations fall within the scope of private life
Von Hannover v Germany
‘Everyone’ under A8 includes celebrities - need to protect children greater than that for adults
Johannsen v Norway
Consider the best interests of the child rather than those of the parents
Barbulescu v Romania
Employers can monitor workers’ emails so long as the workers have been informed.
Workers must be made aware of the possible consequences for using his/her email for personal reasons
Wainwright v UK
“English law contains no specific tort of invasion of privacy and does not need to create one” - Lord Hoffman
Campbell v MGN LTD
Tort of misuse of private information case
PJS v News Group
Neither A8 or A10 takes precedence over the other, but conflicting interests must be weighed up.
Wood v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis
Retention of photographs must be proportionate to legal objective
Axon v Secretary of State for Health (2006)
As long as a child is Gillick competent, parents are not entitled to info kid wants to keep confidential
Murray v Big Pictures (2008)
Children have a reasonable expectation to not be target and have photos taken.
Tele2 Sverige and Watson (2016)
Where national legislation provides for data retention, any retention must be strictly necessary for the purposes of investigating serious crime and linked to the investigation of serious crime.
AB v Secretary of State for Justice
Interference with A8 right must be proportionate to an aim pursued
McDonald v McDonald (2016)
A8 only operates with respect to claim against public bodies.
Hatton v UK
Right to home life case
Gaskin v UK (1996)
Must be a good justification for preventing individuals from having access to info which forms part of family and private life.
MS v Sweden (1999)
Respecting confidentiality of health data is vital
Vidal-Hall v Google (2014)
Tort of misuse of private information case
Rees v UK
No interference with A8 unless it’s necessary in a democracy.
Klass v Germany
‘Everyone’ includes businesses. Secret surveillance of citizens is tolerable under ECHR only in so far as strictly necessary for safeguarding democratic institutions.
Gillick v West Norfolk AHA 1984
Gillick confidence – a term used to assess whether a child has the maturity to make their own decision and to understand the implications of those decisions.
