![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The right to privacy is one of the rights enshrined in international human rights law. However, with the increasing digitalisation of modern life, protecting one’s privacy has become more complicated. Both state and non-state organisations make frequent interventions in citizens’ private lives. Legislations exist to ensure such interventions are carried out proportionately and with the permission of the relevant authorities. In this article a close look will be taken at Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, its historical origins, definition and scope. The article will also examine current case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the light of the current developments in the digital world.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributor
Özgür Heval Çɪnar is a senior lecturer at the School of Law and Criminology, University of Greenwich. He did his post-doc at the University of Oxford between 2012 and 2016. He is also a lawyer.
Correction Statement
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Notes
1 Ali Korkmaz, ‘Insan Haklari Baglaminda Ozel Hayatin Gizliligi ve Korunmasi’ [Right to Privacy and Its Protection in the Context of Human Rights], KMU Sosyal ve Ekonomik Arastirmalar Dergisi 16 (2014): 99.
2 C. T. Onions, G. W.S. Friedrichsen and R. W. Burchfield, Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (Oxford: Oxford University Press1966), 711.
3 Yasar Salihpasaoglu, ‘Ozel Hayatin Kapsami: Avrupa Insan Haklari Mahkemesi Ictihatlari Isiginda Bir Degerlendirme’ [The Scope of Right to Privacy: An Evaluation in light of European Court of Human Rights’ Case Law], Gazi Universitesi Hukuk Fakultesi Dergisi XVII (2013): 233.
4 Pal Fejos, Ethonology of the Yagua (New York: Viking Fund Publication, 1943); Barrington Moore, Privacy: Studies in Social and Cultural History (New York: Routledge, 1984); Also see Salihpasaoglu, pp. 228–229.
5 James R. Michael, Privacy and Human Rughts: An International and Comparative Study, with Special Reference to Development in Inforation Technology (Paris: UNESCO, 1994), p. 15; Also see Salihpasaoglu, p. 229.
6 Guclu Akyurek, Ozel Hayatin Gizliligini Ihlal Suclari, Cesitli Hukuk Dallarinda Ozel Hayatin Gizliliginin Korunmasi [A Violation of Right to Privacy, The Protection of Right to Privacy in Various Law Branches] (Ankara: Seckin Publication House, 2011), 105–8; Also see Korkmaz, ‘Insan Haklari Baglaminda Ozel Hayatin Gizliligi ve Korunmasi’, 100.
7 Niemietz v. Germany, 13710/88, 16.12.1992, para. 29.
8 Arthur Miller, Assault on Privacy: Computers, Data Banks and Dossiers (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1971); Also see Salihpasaoglu, ‘Ozel Hayatin Kapsami’, 234.
9 Julie C. Innes, Privacy, Intimacy and Isolation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 3; Also see Salihpasaoglu, ‘Ozel Hayatin Kapsami’, 234.
10 Ibid, 235–6.
11 Human Rights Council Resolution, A/HRC/RES/34/7.
12 Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy’, A/HRC/37/62, 2018, p. 14.
13 Korkmaz, ‘Insan Haklari Baglaminda Ozel Hayatin Gizliligi ve Korunmasi’, 102.
14 Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 13134/87, 25.03.1993, para. 36.
15 Niemietz v. Germany, 13710/88, 16.12.1992, para. 29.
16 See Council of Europe, Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2019); See also e.g. Pretty v. the United Kingdom, 2346/02, 29.04.2002; Peck v the United Kingdom, 44647/98, 28.01.2003; Von Hannover v. Germany (No. 2), 40660/08, 60641/08, 07/07/2012; Barbulescu v. Romania (GC), 61496/08, 05.09.2017; Satakunnan Markkinaporssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland (GC), 931/13, 27.06.2017.
17 Ursula Kilkelly, The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life: A Guide to the Implementation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2003), 16.
18 Johnston and others v. Ireland, 9697/82, 18.12.1986.
19 Berrehab v. the Netherlands, 10730/84, 21.06.1998.
20 X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom (GC), 21830/93, 22.04.1997.
21 Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], 29381/09 and 32684/09, ECHR 2013, paras. 73-74; X and Others v. Austria [GC], 19010/07, ECHR 2013, para. 95.
22 See Gulay Arslan Oncu, Ozel Yasama ve Aile Yasamina Saygi Hakki [Right to Private and Family Life] (Ankara: Anayasa Mahkemesi Yayinlari, 2019), 125.
23 K. and T. v. Finland [GC], 25702/94, 12.07.2001, para. 150.
24 Giacomelli v. Italy, 59909/00, 02.11.2006, para. 76.
25 Khatun and 180 others v. the United Kingdom, 38387/97, EComHR Admissibility Decision, 01.07.1998, para. 1.
26 Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 9063/80, 24.11.1996, para. 46; Khatun and 180 others v. the United Kingdom, 38387/97, EComHR Admissibility Decision, 01.07.1998, para. 1.
27 Niemietz v. Germany, 13710/88, 16.12.1992, para. 29; Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], 27238/95, 18.01.2001, para. 74; Demades v. Turkey, 16219/90, 31.07.2003, para. 45.
28 O’Rouke v. the United Kingdom, 39022/97, 26.06.2001, para. 3.
29 Kilkelly, The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, 19.
30 Copland v. the United Kingdom, 62617/00, 03.04.2007, para. 41; Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden, 12963/87, 25.02.1992, para. 72.
31 Oncu, Ozel Yasama ve Aile Yasamina Saygi Hakki, 34.
32 Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others v. Norway, 24117/08, 14.03.2013, para. 106.
33 Schönenberger and Durmaz v. Switzerland, 11368/85, 20.06.1988.
34 Oncu, Ozel Yasama ve Aile Yasamina Saygi Hakki, 154.
35 Kilkelly, The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, 25.
36 Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 5947/72; 6205/73; 7052/75; 7061/75; 7107/75; 7113/75; 7136/75, 25.03.1983, para. 90.
37 Open Door Counsel- ling v. Ireland, 14234/88, 29.10.1992.
38 Kilkelly, The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, 30.
39 Olsson v. Sweden, 10465/83, 24.03.1988, para. 67.
40 Coster v. the United Kingdom, 24876/94, 18.01.2001, para. 104; Jane Smith v. the United Kingdom, 25154/94, [GC], 18.01.2001, para. 54.
41 Handyside v. the United Kindgom, 5493/72, 07.12.1976, para. 49.
42 Ibid., para. 48.
43 Ibid., 11.
44 Olsson v. Sweden (No. 2), 13441/87, 30.10.1992, para. 91.
45 Kilkelly, The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, 32.
46 Council of Europe, Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention, 8.
47 Kilkelly, The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, 21.
48 Beganovic v. Crotia, 46423/96, 25.06.2009; Storck v. Germany, 61603/00, 16.06.2005.
49 Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], 40660/08 and 60641/08, 07.02.2012, para. 95.
50 Oncu, Ozel Yasama ve Aile Yasamina Saygi Hakki, 79.
51 S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECHR 2008.
52 Liz Heffernan, ‘DNA and Fingerprint Data Retention: S and Marper v. United Kingdom’, European Law Review 34, no. 3 (2009): 491–504.
53 R v. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] UKSC 21: See also GeneWatch UK, ‘The Marper Case’, http://www.genewatch.org/sub-563146 (accessed January 18, 2020).
54 Klass and others v. Germany, Series A no. 28, 06.09.1978.
55 See Salihpasaoglu, footnotes 104, 116, 117, 120.
56 Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, Strasbourg, 28.I.1981.
57 Amann v. Switzerland [GC], 27798/95, 16.02.2000, para. 65.
58 Z. v. Finland, 22009/93, 25.02.1997, para. 95.
59 Bernh Larsern Holding AS and Others v. Norway, 24117/08, 08.07.2013, para. 107.
60 E.g. M. S. v. Sweden, 20837/92, 27.08.1997; Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, 10454/83, 07.07.1989; Leander v. Sweden, 9248/81, 26.03.1987; Amann v. Switzerland, [GC], 27798/95, 16.02.2000, para. 65; S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, [GC], 30562/04 30566/04, 04.12.2008, para. 41; Rotaru v. Romania, [GC], 28341/95, 04.05.2000, para. 43.
61 E.g. P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, 44787/98, 25.09.2001; Vetter v.France, 59842/00, 31.05.2005; Wisse v. France, 71611/01, 20.12.2005; L. H. v. Latvia, 52019/07, 29.04.2014.
62 Salihpasaoglu, ‘Ozel Hayatin Kapsami’, 245.
63 Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2), paras. 108–113; Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], 39954/08, 07.02.2012, paras. 89–95; See also Council of Europe, Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention, 34.
64 Global Freedom of Expression, ‘Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2)’, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/von-hannover-v-germany-no-2/ (accessed January 18, 2020).
65 Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 1), 59320/00, 24.06.2004, para. 72.
66 5rb Media and Communications Law, ‘Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2)’, https://www.5rb.com/case/von-hannover-v-germany-2/ (accessed January 18, 2020).
67 Kilkelly, The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, 34.
68 Friedl v. Austria, Comm. Rep., 15225/89, 19.05.1994, p. 20.
69 Kilkelly, The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, 35–7.
70 McVeigh, O’Neill and Evans v. the United Kingdom, 8022/77, 8025/77, 8027/77, 18.03.1981, DR 24, p. 15.
71 Edward Crysler, ‘Brannigan and Mcbride v. U.K.: A New Direction on Article 15 Derogations Under the European Convention on Human Rights?’ Revue Belge De Droit International 2 (1994): 609.
72 Murray v. the United Kingdom, 18731/91, 28.10.1994.
73 Leander v. Sweden, 9248/81, 26.03.1987, paras. 59-60.
74 Ibid., para. 62.
75 Ibid., para. 65.
76 Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, para. 49.
77 Ibid., para. 49.
78 Revolvy, ‘Gaskin v. United Kingdom’, https://www.revolvy.com/page/Gaskin-v-United-Kingdom (accessed January 18, 2020).
79 Doorson v. the Netherlands, 29.11.1993, DR 75, p. 231.
80 Kilkelly, The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, 39.
81 A. Beijer, and A.M. van Hoorn, ‘Report on Anonymous Witnesses in the Netherlands’, https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IbmAGHVHRJIJ:https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/43921/b25.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1±&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nl (accessed on January 18, 2020), 547.
82 Oncu, Ozel Yasama ve Aile Yasamina Saygi Hakki, 93–4.
83 Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 18139/91, 13.07.1995.
84 Jishkariani v. Georgia, 18925/09, 20.09.2018, paras. 59-62.
85 Egill Einarsson v. Iceland, 24703/15, 07.11. 2017, para. 52; See also Council of Europe, p. 35.
86 Tamiz v. the United Kingdom, 3877/14, 19.09.2017, paras. 80-81.
87 Council of Europe, Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention, 36.
88 Global Freedom of Expression, ‘Egill Einarsson v. Iceland’, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/einarsson-v-iceland/ (accessed January 18, 2020).
89 Tamiz v. the United Kingdom, paras. 83–84.
90 Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja González, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 13.05.2014, EU: C: 2014: 317
91 Tamiz v. the United Kingdom, para. 81.
92 Global Freedom of Expression, ‘Tamiz v. United Kingdom‘, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/tamiz-v-united-kingdom/ (accessed January 18, 2020).
93 M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, 60798/10 and 65599/10, 28.01.2018, paras. 91, 97, 116.
94 Global Freedom of Expression, ‘M.L. and W.W. v. Germany’, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/m-l-w-w-v-germany/ (accessed January 18, 2020).
95 Oleg Soldatov, ‘M.L. AND W.W. v. Germany: Recent Developments in Judicial Balancing of Privacy and Free Speech Online’, 2018, https://www.rcmediafreedom.eu/Tools/Legal-Resources/M.L.-AND-W.W.-v.-Germany-Recent-Developments-in-Judicial-Balancing-of-Privacy-and-Free-Speech-Online (accessed January 18, 2020).
96 Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan, 65286/13 and 57270/14, 10.01.2019, paras. 142-150.
97 J.S. v. the United Kingdom, 445/10, 03.03.2015.
98 Council of Europe, Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention, 40.
99 Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland, 931/13, 27.06.2017.
100 Dirk Voorhoof, ‘No journalism exception for massive exposure of personal taxation data’, 2017, https://strasbourgobservers.com/2017/07/05/no-journalism-exception-for-massive-exposure-of-personal-taxation-data/#more-3801 (accessed January 18, 2020).
101 Global Freedom of Expression, ‘Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland‘, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/case-satakunnan-markkinaporssi-oy-satamedia-oy-v-finland/ (accessed January 18, 2020).
102 Ibid.
103 Peck v. the United Kingdom, para. 57–63.
104 5rb Media and Communications Law, ‘Peck v United Kingdom’, https://www.5rb.com/case/peck-v-united-kingdom/ (accessed January 18, 2020).
105 Murray v. the United Kingdom, 14310/88, 28.10.1994, para. 93; Segerstedt-Wiberg and others v. Sweden, 62332/00, 06.09.2006, para. 88.
106 Weber and Saravia v. Germany, 54934/00, 29.06.2006, para. 49-50.
107 Weber and Saravia v. Germany, para. 42; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], 28341/95, 04.05.2000, para. 47; Weber and Saravia v. Germany, para. 78.
108 Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, para. 88.
109 Global Freedom of Expression, ‘Weber and Saravia v. Germany’, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/weber-saravia-v-germany/ (accessed January 18, 2020).
110 Big Brother Watch and others v. the United Kingdom, 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15 [2018] ECHR 722.
111 Ibid, para. 347.
112 Reed Smith, ‘ECtHR rules on UK mass surveillance under RIPA’, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7a2e807c-ac9b-4fa9-b751-7deee591b6d9 (accessed January 18, 2020).
113 Council of Europe, Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention, 41.
114 Kilkelly, The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, 39–40.
115 Z v. Finland, 22009/93, 25.02.1997, para. 96; See also Kilkelly, Ibid., 40.
116 Antonella Galetta and Paul de Hert, ‘A European Perspective on Data Protection and the Right of Access’, in The Unaccountable State of Surveillance: Exercising Access Rights in Europe, eds. Clive Norris and others (New York: Springer, 2017), 32.
117 Mockutė v. Lithuania, 66490/09, 27.02. 2018, para. 95.
118 MV v. Sweden, 20837/92, 27.08.1997.
119 S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], 30562/04 and 30566/04, 04.12.2008, para. 71-77; Van der Velden v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 29514/05, ECHR 2006-XV; W. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 20689/08, 20.01.2009.
120 Peruzzo and Martens v. Germany (dec.), nos. 7841/08 and 57900/12, 04.06.2013, paras. 42 and 49.
121 Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, 17423/05, 28.02.2012, para. 216.
122 M. M. v. the United Kingdom, 24029/07, 13.11.2012, para. 199.
123 Aycaguer v. France, 8806/12, 22.06.2017, paras. 34, 38, 44, 45.
124 Haralambie v. Romania, 21737/03, 27.10.2009.
125 Oncu, p. 85.
126 Sloot, Bart van der, ‘Privacy as Personality Right: Why the ECtHR’s Focus on Ulterior Interests Might Prove Indispensable in the Age of Big Data’, Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 31, no. 25 (2015): 44.