Skip to content

Article 8 paragraph 1 of the ECHR guarantees to everyone the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. The essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities.1466 Article 8 therefore encompasses primarily a sphere of private life, the right to live, as far as one wishes, protected from publicity and to develop relationships with other human beings.1467 On the other hand, Article 8 of the ECHR does not protect the right to work as well, as it does not afford protection against unemployment and other related rights and material claims.1468

However, the protection of the private sphere is not unrestricted. Nevertheless, in order for an interference to be justified, it must be in accordance with the law and it must be the measure 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.

An interference is in accordance with the law if it meets the following conditions: (a) the interference must be based on national or international law; (b) the law must be adequately accessible: the citizen must be able to have an indication that is adequate in the circumstances of the legal rules applicable to a given case; and (c) the law must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct.1469 If it turns out that the interference is in accordance with the law, even then it can constitute a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR provided that it is considered that it is not necessary to achieve one of the “legitimate aims” under Article 8 paragraph 2 of the ECHR. “Necessary” in this context means that the interference corresponds to social needs and that there is reasonable proportionality between the interference and the legitimate aim pursued.1470


Footnotes

  1. U 14/00, paragraph 17 in conjunction with ECtHR, Kroon v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1994, paragraph 31; CH/02/8767-A&M, paragraph 100.

  2. CH/99/2696-A&M, paragraph 59.

  3. Ibid.

  4. AP 1031/04, paragraph 18, with reference to Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 26 April 1979, paragraph 49).

  5. Ibid., paragraph 19.

Share this page

This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site. Switch to a production site key to remove this banner.