A8 Right to respect for private & family life

HideShow resource information
Niemietz v Germany
Fax sent PO to judge accusing PM of abuse. Proceedings began without him. Warrant office for 1 hrs looked at client docs etc. Violtion A 8, 13, A1 p1. Breach private life, no definition kept wide & flexible. Too restrictive to keep in personal life.
1 of 49
X & Y v Netherlands
Physical and Moral integrity (inc sex life). Breach for failure of Dutch lw to protect mentally handicapped (Y) 16yo from sexual assault in disabled home. (X notified police)
2 of 49
Evans v UK
lack consensus on IVF rules, male & female can withdraw consent on implanting embryo whenever prior. No Breach others P.life.
3 of 49
S and Marper v UK
Retention of fingerprints, cells by police - 11yo charged w/attempted robbery, charged w/ harrasment kept though discontinued. Sought justify 8(2) necessary to prevent crime. Failed balance public & private interests.
4 of 49
A, B & C v Ireland
3 Claim forced go to UK for abortion as Irish law strict. Restrictions justified 8(2) protecting moral values? Weigh p.life of embryo, maj no breach, wide discretion as complex. No curtailed with MS consensus.
5 of 49
Dudgeon v UK
Maj found criminal prohibition of homosexual condict of consenting adults in private interferance w/ p.life. Not justified.
6 of 49
Laskey, Jaggard & Brown v UK
Upheld prosecution for legitimate aim of protection of health. Homosexual man of assualt (10yrs tho consensual).
7 of 49
ADT v UK
Homosexual activity of 5 men in home convicted s13 SOA. Justified? is in acc w/ law for legit aim of protecting morals but not necessary for democ soc. acts on tape in private & unlikely be sent public so totally private = breach
8 of 49
Smith & Grady v UK
S in RAF, accused of being lesbian. Q'd intimate details of sex life then administrativly discharged. Justified? For nat sec, prevention of disorder. Not necessary in democ soc ( Vauge, hostile & discrim to gays) = Breach
9 of 49
Rees v UK
Female-Male surgery recognised new personality (drivers licence/passport male). No new birth certificate as record at birth (insurance issues) St - MS divergent so wide discretion to balance R and UK. No breach.
10 of 49
B v France
Male-Female surgery. refused to change name as need court auth. ID card not updated (burdensome for jobs etc). A8(2) protect rights of others broad. Confirmed Rees but conseq for B greater. Breach.
11 of 49
Christine Goodwin v UK
No formal recognition of new identity. States must give full legal recognition of new identity. Wide margin removed as EU consensus. (EU cautious let states change 1st)
12 of 49
Leander v Sweden - procedural safeguards.
L work @ maritime museum want security checks as access to navy base. looked at police records said risk. Give L no info why. Reg law = legal. St - potential, qualified right. 8(2) legit aim, nat sec. (cold war) in courts, necessary democ no abuse.
13 of 49
Hewitt & Harman v UK
Senior in nat council of civil liberties. MI5 told sec service secret files on them from NGO work.St - indiv files breach A8. Justified? Nat sec, not in accordance w/ law. No MI5 no leg - breach
14 of 49
Khan v UK
Organised crim activity, police used bug on house to record inside. Tried justify on prevention of organised crime 8(2). Not in accordance w' law as no law regulating use of bugs only admin. breach.
15 of 49
Marckx v Belgium
Single parent family. B not recognise it St - it is a family
16 of 49
Abdulaziz, Cabables & Balkandali v UK
Married couples confirmed family life, if technical defect in licence maybe over looked if minor.
17 of 49
X, Y & z v UK
X Female-Male living with Y (female) allowed IVF = Z. UK said 2 women not family. Clear criteria not confined. live together, duration of rel, children together. Held family (broad). (gay rel still not)
18 of 49
Schalk and Kopf v Austria
Recognised homosexual relationships if meet the terms in X, Y, Z.
19 of 49
W v UK
Asked council to take over care of kids. assumed legal controls & in long term foster care then adoption ordered. Council not involve W. Adoption wout consent. St - justify under rights of others. democ soc? req procedure. necessary to allow parents
20 of 49
K & T v Finland
Cohabiting couple W mental health issues, 1 child & pregnant. mother felt threat to baby. social services took baby once born. St - general obligation to consult where poss w/ exceptions. no real danger in hosp = breach unjustified.
21 of 49
Ignacollo-Zennide v Romania
divorced, 2 kids live w/ both in Fr. Father then left to USA w/ kids. Court order return ignored. Went to Rom order never accepted. St - Rom had positive oblig to order & enforce reuniting. time is of the essence, long time damages family breach.
22 of 49
Berrehab v Netherlands
B moroccan married Dutch right to reside & work. Divorce. amicable & £ given. immig deport B St - B & family close still family life. Dutch justify deportation 8(2) ec well being non-nat in small area. not necessary or proportionate for aim. Breach.
23 of 49
Uner v Netherlands
Turkish 12yo & mum join dad. U not sought Dutch citizenship. U crim offences (had kid). Convicted MS 7yr prison. Deportation as danger & banned 10yrs. St GC- weigh up seriousness crime, closeness rel, children. justified exclusion on protection,
24 of 49
Cont.
Family can move to see U. No breach.
25 of 49
Gillow v UK (broad - disprop)
G house & licence on Gurnsey. 20yrs travelling with work rent out house intended live later. local auth decide no licence cant live there force sale. St - 8(2) ec wellbeing? yes rejected dispute of home. G no other property & intended live there. Bre
26 of 49
Buckley v UK
Gypsy live in 3 caravans bought farm land lived on. forced crim proceedings to move St-no home A8 only lawfully living rejected. Caravans home 8(2) protection public safety & zoning. Proportionate no breach
27 of 49
Neimitz
Search of office violates home. St - business offices can be a home
28 of 49
Loizidou v Turkey
L live in N.Cyprus 1972 then moved. L couldnt move back (invasion) St - rejected that home still as intention not realistic enough
29 of 49
Societe Colas Est v France
business french comp auth felt illegal activities so raided HQ. St - search records violate home? legal person cant claim home St - even legal persons can claim home
30 of 49
Neimitz
Interferance searches
31 of 49
Akdivar v Turkey
attack PKK on security post, killings felt loals supported so burnt down houses. Destruction gravely violates interference of home.
32 of 49
Powell & Rayner v UK (under 8(1)
live in flight path noise interference. Uk pollution defend 8(2) ec wellbeing showing value of heathrow. fair balance, state discretion. look at minimising effects (sell to them or insulation) No breach.
33 of 49
Lopez Ostra v Spain
Leather manuf toxic chemicals. 12m from house claim unbearable. Sp unsucessful, rehoused 2yrs. St - interferance, 8(2) ec important for locals legit. Breach as no fair balance interests & economy.
34 of 49
Guerra v Italy
major chemical factory bad for env (explosions etc) asked council for env info and what to do nothing given. St - positive obligation in env sphere from protection even if private company. Fair balance - Breach. info as so dangerous
35 of 49
Hatton v UK
Heathrow noise pollution. Focus at night complained gov regulation of it allowed too many loud at night. justify detailed reg system, decibel records, quota, public consultation. 8(2) ec wellbeing. St - C maj breach aim not sufficient to outweigh
36 of 49
Hatton cont.
must minimise as much as poss Grand chamber - maj overrule chamber, fair balance test in community interest. Confirmed Powell margin of discretion & no special protections. No breach
37 of 49
Fadeyeva v Russia
Iron manuf pollution Gov made zone around it so no housing but state built homes there. Breach due to level of pollution and complaints.
38 of 49
Golder v UK
advice from lawyer on sueing officers. Prison stopped letter being sent. Com found no breach & court restricted. St - prisoners have ECHR rights unless exceptional subject 8(2) no legit aim here so breach
39 of 49
Silver v UK
Prisoners correspondence stopped both ways. St - detailed reg censorship riles, most not public. Need to be nat laws, accessible to public and reasonably precise & clear. Breach - admin, secret & general
40 of 49
Campbellv UK
rules meant letters opened, claimed not read. C complained letter to st/parl opened. Breach no justification to open st correspondence (poss against prison)
41 of 49
Petra v Romania
try to complain to St, req unsealed letters be given to prison before st. No confidentiality upheld.
42 of 49
Foxley v UK
F official MOD corrupt dealing w/ arms. prosecuted & pay back, made bankrupt use trustee to get £. order to bypass F mail to them. St - no justification 8(2) to open legally privileged docs.
43 of 49
Klass v Germany
K lawyers advising. Gr stat system allow admin interception of mail & calls. overseen by judiciary & parl St - Gr justify 8(2) nat sec, allowed as stat schemes & safeguards sufficient to stop abuse of powers.
44 of 49
Malone v UK
charged w/ stolen goods. prosecution said police intercepted police calls. challenged police interception. Not mmet 8(2) Breach as no national laws regulating them.
45 of 49
Liberty and others v UK
NGO case, L info leaked. Br gov intercept all calls Br-Ireland. L endangered st litigation in collaberation w/ Ir on HR. V likely listened to. St - legal syst didnt meet 8(2) insufficient safeguards & too wide. emails also protected.
46 of 49
Kennedy v UK
MI5 intercepted all correspondence. Br not admit. St - after new 2000 stat regime and detailed public code of practise on interception & safeguards new law met 8(2) no breach.
47 of 49
A8(2)
Interfere in acc w/ law - Silver, necessary in democ soc - Dudgeon Niemietz, Legit aim: Nat sec - Leander Klass, Public safety - Buckely, Ec wellbeing of country- Gillow, Prevention of disorder/crime - Malone,
48 of 49
8(2) Cont
Protection of health - Laskey, protection of morals - Dudgeon, protection of rights/freedoms of others - Buckely
49 of 49

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Physical and Moral integrity (inc sex life). Breach for failure of Dutch lw to protect mentally handicapped (Y) 16yo from sexual assault in disabled home. (X notified police)

Back

X & Y v Netherlands

Card 3

Front

lack consensus on IVF rules, male & female can withdraw consent on implanting embryo whenever prior. No Breach others P.life.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Retention of fingerprints, cells by police - 11yo charged w/attempted robbery, charged w/ harrasment kept though discontinued. Sought justify 8(2) necessary to prevent crime. Failed balance public & private interests.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

3 Claim forced go to UK for abortion as Irish law strict. Restrictions justified 8(2) protecting moral values? Weigh p.life of embryo, maj no breach, wide discretion as complex. No curtailed with MS consensus.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all ECHR resources »