Family life, Home Life, Correspondence

Kroon v Netherlands – Defined family life

Kroon was married, started a new relationship outside of the marriage where they had a child. The law of Netherlands meant the child could not be registered as A’s child only as Kroon’s husband which would deny the legitimacy of the child. The court held this was a violation of article 8. Family aims to be defined in a way that does not allow legal forms to prevail over ‘biological and social reality’  

R ( agyarko and Ikugua) v SSHD

This was the combined cases of people who had overstayed their visas in the UK and the met UK citizens and started relationships with them. For both the supreme court ruled that the relationship had started when their status was precarious so they could not stay in the UK in the interest of these relationships. There are two narrow justifications to immigration proceedings.

1. There are insurmountable obstacles (very serious practical or factual barriers) to the couple continuing their family life outside the UK

2. There are exceptional circumstances such that a refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences, making removal disproportionate under article 8

Yousef v Netherlands

In this case a child had one parent living in Egypt but was living with the other in the Netherlands. The parent in Egypt applied to be brought to the Netherlands to reunite with his child and live permanently. It was decided the child did not need their father and was happy enough with just their mother. The interests of the child are always paramount.

Other things that come under the scope of family

Adoptive relationships – Pini v Romania 

Cohabitation – Kamal v UK 

Children and grandchildren – Marckx v Belgium  

Khatun v UK

Here the claimants had been affected by heavy pollution in their area of London. It was decided the applicants could include both the homeowners and the occupiers such as the children of the applicant as they were all affected. 

McDonald v McDonald

The applicant was a woman with mental health issues whose parents bought a house subject to a mortgage. When they failed to pay this the claim was brought to prevent the landlord from evicting her. It was decided the courts did not have a requirement to decide on whether a private landlord could evict their tenant. The claim has to be against public bodies. 

Niemietz v Germany

The police searched a lawyer’s office to try identifying a suspect. As the right protects the right to establish and develop relationships this included work. 

Connors v UK

This case was a clear rebuke of the UK’s approach to evicting Gypsies from local authority sites. The European Court of Human Rights held that the summary eviction powers used against Mr Connors, without any requirement for the authority to justify its decision before an independent tribunal, breached Article 8. The Court accepted that managing sites was a legitimate aim, but the process lacked proportionality and procedural safeguards. Bottom line: respect for the home under Article 8 requires not just a lawful aim, but fair decision-making and meaningful oversight. Caravans count as homes and travellers can use article 8 when they are unlawfully evicted from a site they have a lawful right to be in. 

Marazai v Italy

If the council is trying to remove somone with mental health needs they need to make sure they are sending them somewhere which will help them with these needs by providing alternative accommodation.

Novoseletsky v Ukraine

Article 8 does not mean the state has to provide you with a home it just means the state has to respect their privacy within that home.  

Regulations of investigatory powers act 2000 (RIPA) 

Surveillance defined as ‘monitoring, observing ot listening to persons, their movements their conversations or other communications’ 

Allows for: 

• Direct surveillance e.g. watching your house 

• Intrusive surveillance e.g. putting a listening device in your house 

• Covert sources e.g. informants, undercover relationships 

Surveillance must be necessary and must be proportionate 

Correspondence is your coummincation both in person and electronically  

Singh and Khalif v SSHD (2015)

S & K were non-UK nationals who made applications
to remain in the UK on the basis of Article 8. This
application was made before the introduction of
new, stricter, immigration rules.

The SSHD still won their case, which shows that new
rules can be applied to pending immigration

MM (Lebanon) v SSHD (2017)

Immigration rules stated that a resident seeking
to bring a non-EEA spouse to the UK must satisfy
a minimum income requirement.

The UKSC held that the existence of such rules in
themselves was compatible with the ECHR’s.

Halford v UK

A senior police officer’s work and home phone calls were intercepted by her employer during sex discrimination proceedings.
The ECHR found a breach of Article 8: she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the interception lacked a clear legal basis.

Investigatory Powers Act 2016 

Consolidates existing powers and established the Investigatory Powers Tribunal 

1. The act permits the interception, acquisition, examination, selection and disclosure of communication data 

2. The targeted interception of the contents of communication 

3. Targeted acquisition and examination7Act allows ‘equipment interference’ allowing them to hack systems to support investigations 

4. They are allowed to do bulk interceptions of communications, retain and access bulk communications data and build bulk personal data sets 

5. The act allows for mandatory retention of data for it to be available for the government to access 

Protections 

1. The so called ‘double lock’ protection –person in authority plus judicial commissioner must agree warrants 

2. Investigatory powers commissioner is a watchdog to monitor these powers 

3. Investigatory powers tribunal takes complaints

4. Bulk data collections controls

5. Rules on how long data can be retained for

6. Triple lock protections for MPs, Lawyers, Journalists

Liberty v SSHD

Ruled that the protections contained in RIPA made the IPA proportionate and compatible with the ECHR.

Davis and Watson MPs v SSHD

This involved a legal challenge against the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA). The claimants argued that the Act did not provide sufficient safeguards to protect individuals' rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act 1998. The High Court upheld the claimants' argument, finding that the Act did not comply with EU law and that the lack of basic protections breached British citizens' rights. The Court of Appeal later ruled that mass surveillance was illegal, reinforcing the need for more stringent safeguards on data retention and access.

Section 32 (2)(a) - Halford v Uk

Allows the use of intrusive surveillance if the secretary of state considers it necessary for:

(a) being in the interest of national security

(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime

(c) or in the interests of the economic well being of the country