Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights Concerning the Protection of Personal Data
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Strasbourg, 15 November 2017 T-PD(2017)23 CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int) CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA Contents JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (PRESS RELEASES AND LEGAL SUMMARIES) 1. Eur. Court of HR, Klass and others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, application no. 5029/71. Law authorising secret services to carry out secret monitoring of communications (postal and telephone).. .................................................................................. 18 2. Eur. Court of HR, Malone v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, application no. 8691/79. Interception of postal and telephone communications and release of information obtained from “metering” of telephones, both effected by or on behalf of the police within the general context of criminal investigation. .............................................. 21 3. Eur. Court of HR, Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, application no. 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. ............................ 24 4. Eur. Court of HR, Gaskin v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, application no. 10454/83. Refusal to grant former child in care unrestricted access to case records kept by social services……. ......................................................................................................... 27 5. Eur. Court of HR, Kruslin v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, application no. 11801/85, and Eur. Court of HR, Huvig v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, application no. 11105/84. The applicants complained about the telephone tapping carried out by senior police officer under warrant issued by investigating judge. ............................................................... 30 6. Eur. Court of HR, Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, application no. 13710/88. The applicant complained about the search of his office in course of criminal proceedings against a third party.. .............................................................................................. 33 7. Eur. Court of HR, Murray v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1994, application no. 14310/88. As far as a person suspected of terrorism is concerned, entry into and search of her home for the purpose of effecting the arrest; record of personal details and photograph without her consent………….. ............................................................ 35 8. Eur. Court of HR, McMichael v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, application no. 16424/90. The applicant complained about the non-disclosure to them of some confidential documents submitted in care proceedings……………………………………………..37 9. Eur. Court of HR, Z. v. Finland, judgment of 25 February 1997, application no. 22009/93. The applicant complains about the seizure of medical records and their inclusion in investigation file without the patient’s prior consent in criminal proceedings; the limitation 3 of the duration of the confidentiality of the medical data concerned; the publication of her identity and HIV infection in a court judgment given in those proceedings ......................... 43 10. Eur. Court of HR, Halford v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 25 June 1997, application no. 20605/92. The applicant complains that telephone calls made from her office in Merseyside Police Headquarters had been intercepted and that she had not had available to her any effective remedy for this complaint. ........................................................ 44 11. Eur. Court of HR, Anne-Marie Andersson v. Sweden, judgment of 27 August 1997, application no. 20022/92. The applicant complained of the impossibility for a patient, prior to the communication of personal and confidential medical data by medical authority to a social services authority, to challenge the measure before a court.. ..................................... 46 12. Eur. Court of HR, M.S. v. Sweden, judgment of 27 August 1997, application no. 20837/92. The applicant maintained that the communication of her medical records by the clinic to the Social Insurance Office constituted a violation of her right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention…………………………………………………………………………………………48 13. Eur. Court of HR, Lambert v. France, judgment of 24 August 1998, application no. 23618/94. Judgment whereby Court of Cassation refused a person locus standi to complain of interception of some of his telephone conversations, on the ground that it was a third party’s line that had been tapped…………… ......................................................... 51 14. Eur. Court of HR, Amann v. Switzerland, judgment of 16 February 2000, application no. 27798/95. The applicant complained that the interception of the telephone call and the creation by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of a card on him and the storage of that card in the Confederation’s card index had violated Article 8. ............................................................. 53 15. Eur. Court of HR, Rotaru v. Romania, judgment of 4 May 2000, application no. 28341/95. The applicant complained of an infringement of his right to private life in that the Romanian Intelligence Service held a file containing information on his private life and that it was impossible to refute the untrue information. .......................................................... 60 16. Eur. Court of HR, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September 2001, application no. 44787/98. The applicants complained about the use of covert listening devices to monitor and record their conversations at B’s flat, the monitoring of calls from B’s telephone and the use of listening devices to obtain voice samples while they were at the police station. ......................................................................................................................... 563 17. Eur. Court of HR, M.G v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 September 2002, application no. 39393/98. Requested access to applicant’s social service records.. .......... 62 18. Eur. Court of HR, Taylor-Sabori v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 2002, no. 47114/99. The applicant complained about the interception of pager messages by the police and subsequent reference to them at the trial. ............................................................ 684 4 19. Eur. Court of HR, Allan v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 November 2002, application no. 48539/99. The applicant complained of use of covert audio and video surveillance within a prison cell and the prison visiting area. ................................................ 66 20. Eur. Court of HR, Peck v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 January 2003, 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.. .................................................... 68 21. Eur. Court of HR, Cotlet v. Romania, judgment of 3 June 2003, application no. 38565/97. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention of interference with his correspondence with the Convention institutions. He also complained of a violation of his right of individual application, as guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention.. .................. 71 22. Eur. Court of HR, Odièvre v. France, judgment of 13 February 2003, application no. 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 ………………………………………………………………………………………………….73 23. Eur. Court of HR, Perry v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 July 2003, application no. 63737/00 (violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Use of videotape by the Police for identification and prosecution purposes …………………………………………………………….74 24. Eur. Court of HR, Matwiejczuk v. Poland, judgment of 2 December 2003, application no. 37641/97 (No violation of Article 34). The applicant complained about the length of his pre- trial detention, the length of the criminal proceedings against him and that his letters were monitored during his detention.. ................................................................................................. 75 25. Eur. Court of HR, Von Hannover v. Germany, judgment of 24 June 2004, application no. 59320/00. Applicant complained about obligation of states to protect an individual’s image, even for photos taken of public figures in public spaces.. ......................................... 76 26. Eur. Court of HR, Sciacca v. Italy, judgment of 11 January 2005, application no. 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. ....................................................................................... 78 27. Eur. Court of HR, Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, judgment of 14 January 2005, application no. 92/03. The applicant complained that the proceedings resulting in his conviction had been unfair and that his right to respect for his correspondence had been infringed.