EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION / Alla Tymofeyeva (ed.)

CHAPTER V. RIGHTS RELATING TO SPIRITUAL FREEDOM

MAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT

Article 8 of the Convention Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. General principles of the Court The essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by public authorities . There are in addition positive obligations inherent in effective “respect” for family life. In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation ( Keegan v. Ireland , 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290). The concept of private life extends to aspects relating to personal identity , such as a person’s name, photo, or physical and moral integrity; the guarantee afforded by Article 8 of the Convention is primarily intended to ensure the development, without outside interference, of the personality of each individual in his relations with other human beings. There is thus a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of private life. Publication of a photo may thus intrude upon a person’s private life even where that person is a public figure (see Schüssel v. Austria (dec.), no. 42409/98, 21 February 2002; Von Hannover v. Germany , no. 59320/00, §§ 50 and 53, ECHR 2004-VI; Sciacca , cited above, § 29; and Petrina v. Romania , no. 78060/01, § 27, 14 October 2008). Telephone calls received on private or business premises are covered by the notions of “private life” and “correspondence” within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 (see the Halford v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 June 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, p. 1016, § 44). The opening of one letter is sufficient to disclose an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence ( Narinen v. Finland , no. 45027/98, § 32, 1 June 2004). Respect for private life comprises the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings; furthermore, there is no reason of principle to justify excluding activities of a professional or business nature from the notion of “private life” ( Niemietz v. Germany judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-34, § 29). Article 8 is applicable to the applicants’ complaints in that the refusal of artificial insemination facilities concerned their private and family lives, which notions incorporate the right to respect for their decision to become genetic parents (see E.L.H. and P.B.H. v. the United Kingdom , nos. 32094/96 and 32568/96, Commission decision of 22 October 1997, DR 91-A, p. 61; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI; Aliev v. Ukraine , no. 41220/98, § 187-89, 29 April 2003; and Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 71‑72, ECHR 2007-I).

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

55