МЕДИЈИ И ПРАВО НА ПРИВАТНОСТ: Руски случајеви пред Европским судом за људска права
MEDIA VS. RIGHT TO PRIVACY: Russian cases in the ECHR

Summary/Abstract: Since Russia ratified European Convention of Human Rights in 1998, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has issued 1212 judgments on different cases filed against Russia. Among them, there are 94 cases where the Court founded that there was a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention which guarantees the right to respect for one’s private and family life. Almost half of these cases were connected with publications in newspapers, TV program broadcasts or the Internet related information, and many of them involved the journalists’ interference with one’s private life. Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights is divided into two parts. The first paragraph of Article 8 sets out the specific rights which are to be guaranteed to an individual by the State: the right to respect for private life, family life, home and correspondence. The second paragraph of Article 8 clarifies that those rights are not absolute as it may be necessary in certain circumstances for the public authorities to interfere with the rights. Article 8 para. 2 also indicates the specific circumstances under which the public authorities may interfere with the rights set out in Article 8 para. 1. In determining the admissibility of a complaint filed by an individual under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court applies a two-stage test. The first stage concerns the applicability of Article 8 of the Convention; in other words, the Court has to determine whether the right which an individual claims to have been interfered with actually falls within the scope of the right guaranteed by Article 8 para. 1 of the Convention. This often involves discussion on, for example, what constitutes private life or home within the meaning of Article 8 para. 1. If the judge considers, on the basis of the ECHR jurisprudence, that the right invoked by an individual (for example, the right to be provided with free housing) is not in fact a right covered by the guarantees in Article 8 para. 1, then Article 8 is inapplicable and the complaint ends there. However, if Article 8 is found to be applicable, the Court goes on to the second stage of the assessment. The most common situation is where the applicant has claimed that the State took action which he/she considers to have been in violation of his/her Article 8 rights; in that case, the Court considers whether the interference with the Article 8 right can be justified with reference to the requirements of Article 8 para. 2. Applicants also complain (although less frequently) that the State or public authorities failed to take action which should have been taken, and which would have been necessary to provide the necessary “respect” for his/her Article 8 rights. In that case, the Court should consider whether the State had, given the circumstances, a positive obligation to act in compliance with the “respect” element of Article 8. The analyses of the ECHR case law help the domestic judicial systems with interpretation of the definition of privacy and the specifics of applying the law in such cases.

• Details
• Contents