Article 8

• Article 8 (1)

  Everyone has the right to respect for a private life, family life, home and correspondence.
• Article 8 (2)

  The state can interfere with a persons article 8 rights if it is:

  In accordance with the law.

  Meets a legitimate aim.

  Necessary in a democratic society.
• Private Life

  Defined in Pretty v UK as a person’s physical and social identity, gender identification, name and sexual orientation.
• Private Life

  Bensaid v UK - there can be a breach if a person suffers adverse effects upon their mental health.

  AB v SOS for Justice - breach if the state discriminates against a person for being transgender.

  Goodwin v UK - cannot restrict someone’s private life that discriminates sex, gender, sexual orientation.
• Private Life

  Gillick - A persons medical records form part of their private life.

  Wood v Commissioner of the Police - taking photos of a person is not a breach but retaining them is.
• Private Life of Celebrities

  Does have the right to a private life, but cannot expect the same level of privacy.

  Courts will consider the welfare of the person, public interest vs interesting to the public.
• Private life of Celebrities

  Campbell v MGN - priority for courts will always be the welfare of the person involved.

  Hannover v Germany - Asks question whether the information is in the public interest or just interesting to the public.

  Murray v Express Newspapers - There will be a breach if a child of a famous person is photographed without their parents consent.
• Family Life

  Given a broad meaning. Depends on close family ties, matter of fact or degree.

  Kroon v The Netherlands - The biological and social natures of the relationship are more important than legal formalities.
• Family Life

  Every member state has restrictions on what its residents can name their children.

  Uk is liberal - cannot be silly or offensive.

  Germany is strict - cannot name Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Matti or gender neutral.
• Family Life

  Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza - Cohabiting heterosexual couples and cohabiting homosexual couples should be treated equally under legislation to comply with Article 8
• Home

  Right to enjoy your existing home peacefully.

  The state can lawfully restrict the right under the following circumstances:

  Police searches and surveillance

  Eviction
• Home

  Police searches and Surveillance

  Halford v UK - the police can lawfully carry out surveillance on a person‘s home and correspondence but there must be a legal basis to carry it out.
• Home

  Eviction

  Connors v UK - A person can not be evicted from their home without lawful reason.
• Correspondence

  This is emails, texts, letters and other communication methods.

  Monitoring at work:

  Copland v UK - If surveillance is placed on someone’s work correspondence, the employee must be made aware of it for it to be lawful.
• Correspondence

  Police Surveillance:

  The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

  Section 32 - must be necessary for the purposes of protecting national security or preventing / detecting crime.

  The Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

  State can monitor private correspondence if they gain judicial approval for method of monitoring.
• Correspondence

  Big Brother Watch Case

  The main provisions of both Acts are not in breach of Article 8 unless used for mass surveillance.
• P- Article 8 is a qualified act meaning it can be limited in certain circumstances, arguably when necessary. 


  DP- restrictions on home are necessary, for example arrest warrants or surveillance, would be unreasonable to not allow police entry.

  WDP- margin of appreciation is unfair, inconsistencies, uk has liberal rules, Germany had strict rules. Reasonable because of the different cultures.
• P- The rules of Article 8 prevent abuses of power by the state. This is because state can only lawfully interfere if in accordance with rules laid out in Article 8(2)


  DP- If public body acts unlawfully there will be a breach. Copland v UK breach found in workplace. Since 2007 abuse of power has been reduced, need to be informed.

  WDP- Doesn’t prevent breaches that occur secretly. Big Brother Watch Case, facts wouldn’t have become public if it wasn’t for a witness who is now hiding. There could be many more.
• P- The rules covering sex, gender, sexual orientation and transgender rights under Article 8 protect individual rights.


  DP- Law on private life and sexual orientation Does not allow for discrimination. These individuals cannot be restricted.

  WDP- forced to change law if they pass law that discriminates against some citizens. As seen in the Gender Recognition Act 2004, allowed birth certificates changed after gender reassignment surgery. Law now complied with Article 8.
• P- The wide interpretation of private and family life provides strong human rights protection.


  DP- no exhaustive definition of family life. Can adapt and change. Example: Same sex relationships before 2013 couldn’t get married not part of family life, now it is so it provides stronger human rights protection.

  WDP- no exhaustive definition of private life. Can adapt and change. Example: 1950s sexual orientation and transgender rights were not covered, now they are providing strong human rights protection.