Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights Concerning the Protection of Personal Data
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Strasbourg, June 2019 CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law This compilation was prepared by the Data Protection Unit of the Council of Europe ([email protected]) and the European Court of Human Rights takes no responsibility for its content. The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int). Thematic Table of Contents Access to Personal Data Eur. Court of HR, Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, application no. 41 9248/81. Use of information kept in a secret police-register when assessing a person’s suitability for employment on a post of importance for national security. Eur. Court of HR, Gaskin v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, application 44 no. 10454/83. Refusal to grant former child in care unrestricted access to case records kept by social services. Eur. Court of HR, McMichael v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, 57 application no. 16424/90. The applicant complained about the non-disclosure to them of some confidential documents submitted in care proceedings. Eur. Court of HR, M.G v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 September 2002, 84 application no. 39393/98. Requested access to applicant’s social service records. Eur. Court of HR, Odièvre v. France, judgment of 13 February 2003, application no. 95 42326/98. Applicant complained about her inability to find out about origins of her mother. The Court ruled that the request for disclosure of her mother’s identity, was subject to the latter’s consent being obtained. Eur. Court of HR, K.H. and others v. Slovakia, judgment of 28 April 2009, application no. 139 32881/04. The applicants complain under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), and Article 6§ 1 (access to court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights about not having been allowed to make photocopies of their medical records, the impossibility for the applicants or their lawyers to obtain photocopies of their medical records having limited their effective access to court and not guaranteeing a remedy to challenge a law itself. Eur. Court of HR, Tsourlakis v. Greece, judgment of 15 October 2009, application no. 145 50796/07. The applicant complains under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights about being prevented from consulting the report of the Child Welfare Society about his son. Eur. Court of HR, Haralambie v. Romania, judgment of 27 October 2009, application no. 147 21737/03. The applicant complains under Article 6§ 1 (access to court) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights about the proceedings concerning the restoration of the land that had belonged to his mother and the obstacles to his right of access to the personal file created on him by the former secret services. Eur. Court of HR, Dalea v. France, judgment of 2 February 2010, application 58243/00. 151 Inability to access or secure rectification of personal data in Schengen database. The Court ruled that applicant’s inability to gain personal access to all the information he had requested could not in itself prove that the interference was not justified by national security interests. Eur. Court of HR, Godelli v. Italy, judgment of 25 September 2012, application no. 182 33783/09. Confidentiality of information concerning a child’s origins: the Italian system does not take account of the child’s interests. 2 Eur. Court of HR. M.K. v. France, judgment of 18 April 2013, application no. 19522/09. 198 The Court found that the absence of safeguards for collection, preservation and deletion of fingerprint records of persons suspected but not convicted of criminal offences is contrary to Article 8 of the Convention. Balancing Data Protection with Freedom of Expression and the Right to Information Eur. Court of HR, Peck v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 January 2003, 90 application no. 44647/98. The applicant complained about the disclosure of the CCTV footage to the media, which resulted in images of himself being published and broadcast widely, and about a lack of an effective domestic remedy. Eur. Court of HR, Von Hannover v. Germany, judgment of 24 June 2004, application no. 99 59320/00. Applicant complained about obligation of states to protect an individual’s image, even for photos taken of public figures in public spaces. Eur. Court of HR, Sciacca v. Italy, judgment of 11 January 2005, application no. 101 50774/99. The applicant submits that the dissemination of the photograph at a press conference organised by the public prosecutor’s office and the tax inspectors infringed her right to respect for her private life. Eur. Court of HR, Sipoş v. Romania, judgment of 3 May 2011, application no. 26125/04. 165 Journalist’s right to respect for reputation should have prevailed over TV channel’s freedom of expression. Eur. Court of HR, Mosley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 May 2011, application 167 no. 48009/08. The European Convention on Human Rights does not require media to give prior notice of intended publications to those who feature in them. Eur. Court of HR, Avram and Others v. Moldova, judgment of 05 July 2011, application 171 no. 41588/05. Five women broadcast on national television in a sauna romp with police officers should have received higher compensation. Eur. Court of HR, Axel Springer AG v. Germany, judgment of 7 February 2012, 175 application no. 39954/08. Media coverage of celebrities’ private lives: acceptable if in the general interest and if in reasonable balance with the right to respect for private life. Eur. Court of HR, Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2), judgment of 7 February 2012, 178 applications nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, Applicant complained about refusal of domestic courts to issue injunction restraining further publication of a photograph of a famous couple taken without their knowledge. Eur. Court of HR, Alkaya v. Turkey, judgment of 9 October 2012, application no. 188 42811/06. Press disclosure of a celebrity’s address breached her right to respect for her private and family life. Eur. Court of HR. Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others v. Norway, judgment of 14 194 March 2013, application no. 24117/08. The applicants complained about a decision ordering them to provide the tax auditors with a copy of all data on a computer server which the three companies used jointly. The Court considered that a fair balance has been struck between the companies’ right to respect for “home” and “correspondence” and their interest in protecting the privacy of persons working for them, on the one hand, and the public interest in ensuring efficient inspection for tax assessment purposes, on 3 the other hand. Therefore it is in accordance with the law. Eur. Court of HR. Węgrzynowski and Smolczewskiv v. Poland, judgment of 16 July 200 2013, application no. 33846/07. The applicants complained about Court’s refusal to order the newspaper to remove an article damaging the applicants’ reputation from its Internet archive. The respondent State had complied with its obligation to strike a balance between the rights guaranteed under Article 8 and 10 of the Convention. Eur. Court of HR. Haldimann and Others v Switzerland, judgment of 24 February 2015, 215 application no. 21830/09. Balance between freedom of expression and right to privacy. The applicants complained about their conviction for having recorded and broadcasted an interview of a private insurance broker using a hidden camera. In the video, the broker’s face was pixelated and his voice. The Court considered that the interference in the private life of the broker, who had turned down an opportunity to express his views on the interview in question, had not been serious enough to override the public interest in information on malpractice in the field of insurance brokerage. The Court found, by majority, that there had been a violation of the freedom of expression. Eur. Court of HR. Bremner v. Turkey, judgment of 13 October 2015, application no. 225 37428/06. Television broadcast showing non-blurred images of an individual obtained using a hidden camera while meeting someone to offer free Christian literature wasn’t justified by general-interest. The State overpassed its margin of appreciation and violated Article 8. Eur. Court of HR, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland, 284 judgment of 27 June 2017, application no. 931/13. After two companies had published the personal tax information of 1.2 million people, the domestic authorities ruled that such wholesale publication of personal data had been unlawful under data protection laws, and barred such mass publications in future. The companies complained to the European Court of Human Rights that the ban had violated their right to freedom of expression. The Court held that the ban had interfered with the companies’ freedom of expression. However, it had not violated Article 10 because it had been in accordance with the law, it had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting individuals’ privacy, and it had struck a fair balance between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression. However, the Court did find a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), due to the excessive length of the proceedings. Eur. Court of HR, Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan, judgment of 10 January 2019, application no. 65286/13.