article 8

8.1 says?

everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, their home and their correspondence

what does niemitz v germany show?

‘everyone’ includes businesses

what does libert v france show?

negative obligation not to interfere with stated rights

what does barbulescu v romania show?

positive obligation to protect rights

what does the right to home include?

right to enjoy ones home peacefully

what does neimitz v germany show?

home includes offices and workplaces

what is the right to correspondence?

the right to all forms of communication

what is right to private life?

right to the psychological and physical integrity of a person, including sex life, gender, personal data, photos

what does campbell v mgn show?

photos invade the right to private life

what does halford v uk show?

phone conversations are included in private life

what is the right to family life?

the right to enjoy family relationships without interference from the state

what does yousef v netherlands show?

rights of children are paramount

what are the justifications under 8.2?

in accordance with the law

for a legitimate aim

necessary in a democratic society

in accordance with the law

correspondence - misuse of private information

defamation act 2013

protection from harassment act 1997

data protection act 1998

misuse of private information

must be information that is genuinely private, which the claimant would expect to remain private and is then misused

what does von hanover v germany show?

unauthorised photos can be protected by article 8

what does mckennit v ash show?

there is a reasonable expectation for confidentiality even if famous

what does zxc v bloomberg show?

individuals under criminal investigation have a reasonable of privacy before they are charged

defamation act 2013

libel or slander must be defamatory, refer to them directly or indirectly, must be published by a third party, the publication must cause, or is likely to cause, serious harm

defences to the defamation act?

s2 - the truth

s3 - honest opinion

s4 - public privilege

protection from harassment act 1997

pursuing a course of conduct amounting to harassment OR conduct that puts the victim in fear of violence

malicious communications act 1998

offence to send someone a communications that is independently grossly offensive, threatening or known or believed to be false by sender - must intend to cause distress

data protection act 1998

controls how data is used by organisations

what does murray v big pictures show?

photos of family - reasonable expectations of privacy

what does klass v germany show? - necessary in a democratic society

the interference must correspond to a pressing social need - necessary in a democratic society

for a legitimate aim

national security, public safety, economic well-being, prevention of disorder, protection of moral or for the freedom of others