CYIL 2014

DO LEGAL PERSONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE? case related to the anti-government demonstrations throughout Romania in December 1989, around the time when the head of state, Nicolae Ceauşescu, was overthrown. The first applicant was the Association „21 December 1989“, an association that supported the interests of victims in criminal proceedings concerning killings, gunshot wounds and the ill-treatment of several thousand people in various Romanian towns as a reset of the demonstrations. The second applicant, Mr Mărieş, took part in the anti-government demonstrations in Bucharest in December 1989. The Court in the present case did not deal with the status of the applicant association, as far as the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention were raised by the second applicant solely. He submitted that he had been subjected to secret surveillance measures, particularly telephone tapping. In his opinion, those measures served as means of pressure exerted by the authorities in connection with his activity as president of the association. When finding a breach of right to private life the Court observed that the domestic legislation lacked safeguards to guarantee that information obtained through secret surveillance was destroyed as soon as it was no longer needed. Regarding the information about the applicant, gathered by the intelligence services in 1990, it was still being held by them in 2006, that is, sixteen years later. Another case which was submitted by a legal and a natural person alleging a violation of Article 8 is the case of Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey . 45 The applicants in the present case were a private company and the director and major shareholder of the company. They alleged that deprivation of their property rights in respect of the plots located in the northern part of Cyprus constituted violations of Articles 1, 8 and 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4. It its admissibility decision the Court concluded that the application raised serious questions of fact and law which were to be examined on the merits. It nevertheless did not rule on the issue since the parties came to a friendly settlement and the case was struck out of the list. 46 There was a similar situation in the case of Angoulos Estate Ltd v. Turkey. 47 The complaint in the case of Saarekallas OÜ and Others v. Estonia 48 was submitted by Saarekallas OÜ, a private limited company registered in Estonia, and seven Finnish nationals. All together alleged under Article 8 that their right to respect for private and family life had been violated by telephone calls, faxes and letters from K. and R. and by the bailiff, who delivered court summons in person. The Court did not deal separately with the complaints from individuals and the legal person, but merely concluded that these complaints did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the invoked Article of the Convention.

45 Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey (dec.), no. 16163/90, 8 June 1999. 46 Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey (just satisfaction-friendly settlement), no. 16163/90, § 17, 22 April 2008.

47 Angoulos Estate Ltd v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36115/03, 9 February 2010. 48 Saarekallas O Ü and Others v. Estonia (dec.), no. 11548/04, 15 May 2006.

303