The Peculiarities of Private and Family Life Protection: The Experience of the European Court of Human Rights

Authors

  • Oksana MELENKO Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18662/eljpa/7.2/125

Keywords:

Human rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the European Court of Human Rights, private life, family life, rights protection, state’s positive obligations

Abstract

One of the most vulnerable spheres of life of any individual is his / her private and family life. Therefore, this issue could not slip the attention of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (hereinafter - the Convention) (Council of Europe, 1950). In fact, there have always been some prejudices within this issue, as it is not a secret that accusations of violating an individual’s right to privacy often provoke discussion in the public sphere. For example, when the UK Special Forces eliminated three terrorists (who were no longer resisting) on the territory of Gibraltar (Case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 1995), the media did not particularly intend to protect the right to life of these criminals. On the other hand, quite a few liberal media sources have resonantly responded to the interference with private life, when a group of stockbrokers and bankers were prosecuted for sadomasochism in a private residence. A similar behavior of the press was observed when discussing the mandatory use of seat belts.

However, when considering the issues related to the violation of Article 8 of the Convention (Council of Europe, 1950), it is important to find answers to a few rather essential questions:

  1. Has there been an interference with private life under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (Council of Europe, 1950)? If so, then –
  2. Is this interference sufficiently justified in the light of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (Council of Europe, 1950), namely:
  3. Was the interference lawful? If yes, then –
  4. Did the interference have a lawful purpose? If yes, then –
  5. Was the interference necessary for a democratic society (can it be regarded as an adequate response to socially urgent necessity)?

In case there arises a question concerning state’s positive obligations, it will no longer belong to the jurisdiction of paragraph 2, but will touch upon the analysis of the issue whether state’s positive obligation exists at all.

Author Biography

Oksana MELENKO, Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University

A fourth-year student, major “International Law”, Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University

References

Case of Cyprus v. Turkey. Judgment. Strasbourg. (2014, May 12). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-144151%22]}

Case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom. Judgment. Strasbourg. (1995, September 27). http://iusgentium.ufsc.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Texto-Cmpl-McCANN-AND-OTHERS-v-UK.pdf

Case of Mentes and others v. Turkey. Judgment. Strasbourg. (1998). https://rm.coe.int/16806b5967

Council of Europe. (1950). European Convention on Human Rights from 1950. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

Downloads

Published

2020-12-12

How to Cite

MELENKO, O. (2020). The Peculiarities of Private and Family Life Protection: The Experience of the European Court of Human Rights. European Journal of Law and Public Administration, 7(2), 39-45. https://doi.org/10.18662/eljpa/7.2/125

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 2 (2020): European Journal of Law and Public Administration

Section

International Law. European Law. Comparative Law.

License

Copyright (c) 2020 Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Faculty of Law and Administrative Sciences, Romania & LUMEN Publishing House

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the works authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in European Journal of Law and Public Administration.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

EJLPA  Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND

CC_BY_NC_ND