Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights Concerning the Protection of Personal Data
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DP (2013) CASE LAW CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA Strasbourg, 30 January 2013 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) ....................................................................................................................... 11 1. Eur. Court HR, Klass and others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no.28 (No violation of the Convention). Law authorising secret services to carry out secret monitoring of communications (postal and telephone). ............................................................................................. 13 2. Eur. Court HR, Malone v. The United Kingdom judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82 (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention). 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. ...................................................... 17 3. Eur. Court HR, Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no.116 (Violation of Articles 8, 10 and 13 of the Convention). 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..... 23 4. Eur. Court HR, Gaskin v. The United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no.160 (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Refusal to grant former child in care unrestricted access to case records kept by social services. ......................................................................................... 27 5. Eur. Court HR, Kruslin v. France judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no.176-A, and Eur. Court HR, Huvig v. France judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no.176-B (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Telephone tapping carried out by senior police officer under warrant issued by investigating judge. ...................................................................................................................................... 32 6. Eur. Court HR, Niemietz v. Germany judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no.251-B (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Search of a lawyer’s office in course of criminal proceedings against a third party. ............................................................................................................ 37 7. Eur. Court HR, Murray v. The United Kingdom judgment of 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300-A (No violation of the Convention). 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. .......................................................................................... 40 8. Eur. Court HR, Friedl v. Austria judgment of 25 January 1995, application no. 15225/89 (Articles 8 and 13). (Struck out – arrangement). During a demonstration the police had photographed the applicant, checked his identity and taken down his particulars and no effective remedy had been available to him. ........................................................................................................... 46 9. Eur. Court HR, McMichael v. The United Kingdom judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B (Violation of Articles 8 and 6 of the Convention). Non-disclosure to applicants of some confidential documents submitted in care proceedings. ....................................................................... 51 10. Eur. Court HR, Z. v. Finland judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I (Article 8 of the Convention). Seizure of medical records and their inclusion in investigation file without the patient’s prior consent in criminal proceedings; limitation of the The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int) duration of the confidentiality of the medical data concerned; publication of her identity and HIV infection in a court judgment given in those proceedings. .................................................................... 57 11. Eur. Court HR, Halford v. The United Kingdom judgment of 25 June 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III (Violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention). Interception of telephone calls made on internal telecommunications system operated by police and on public network; lack of regulation by domestic law. ......................................................................................... 63 12. Eur. Court HR, Anne-Marie Andersson v. Sweden judgment of 27 August 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV (No violation of the Convention). Lack of possibility 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. ........................... 67 13. Eur. Court HR, M.S. v. Sweden judgment of 27 August 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV (No violation of the Convention). Communication, without the patient’s consent, of personal and confidential medical data by one public authority to another and lack of possibility for patient, prior to the measure, to challenge it before a court. ...................................... 70 14. Eur. Court HR, Lambert v. France judgment of 24 August 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention). 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. ....................... 74 15. Eur. Court HR, Amann v. Switzerland judgment of 16 February 2000, application no. 27798/95 (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Recording a telephone conversation concerning business activities, and creation of a card index and storing of data, both by the Public Prosecutor. .................................................................................................................................................... 78 16. Eur. Court HR, Rotaru v. Romania judgment of 4 May 2000, application no. 28341/95 (Violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention). Storing and use of personal data held by the Romanian intelligence services and absence of the possibility of refuting their accuracy. ............. 82 17. Eur. Court HR, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 September 2001, application no no. 44787/98. The applicants complained, relying on Article 8, 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. ......................................................................................................................................... 86 18. Eur. Court HR, M.G v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 September 2002, no. 39393/98 (Violation of Article 8 of the Convention) Requested access to his social service records. ............. 90 19. Eur. Court HR, Taylor-Sabori v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 October 2002, no. 47114/99 (Violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention) Interception of pager messages by the police and subsequent reference to them at the trial. ............................................................................ 92 20. Eur. Court HR, Allan v. the United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 2002, application no. 48539/99 (Violation of Articles 6, 8, and 13 of the Convention) The use of covert audio and video surveillance within a prison cell and the prison visiting area. ............................................................. 94 21. Eur. Court HR, Peck v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 January 2003, application no. 44647/98 (Violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention). The applicant complained about the disclosure of the CCTV footage to the media, which resulted in images of himself being published The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int) and broadcast widely, and about a lack of an effective domestic remedy. He relied on Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. ........................................................................................................................... 96 22. Eur. Court 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. .............................................................. 100 23. Eur. Court HR, Odièvre v. France [GC],application no. 42326/98, ECHR 2003-III of 13 February 2003. Applicant complained about his 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 ................................................................................................................ 104 24. Eur. Court HR, A. v. the United Kingdom judgment of