Article 8 ECHR CASES
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence.
Definition and Principles
Article 8 guarantees individuals protection against unnecessary or disproportionate interference by public authorities into their private lives, family relationships, homes, or personal communications. Interference is permissible only if lawful, necessary, and proportionate for specific legitimate aims.
Common Examples
- Protection from unwarranted surveillance or data collection.
- Rights involving custody and family reunification.
- Challenges to eviction or deportation orders disrupting family life.
Legal Implications
- Requires authorities to balance individual rights against public interests.
- Influences judicial decisions on immigration, privacy, and family law.
Practical Importance
Understanding Article 8 is essential to safeguarding personal freedoms, ensuring privacy, and preventing unjustified state intervention in private and family life.
Home » Article 8 ECHR
Footballer John Terry sought an injunction to stop a newspaper from reporting an alleged affair. The court discharged the injunction, balancing his Article 8 right to privacy against the Article 10 right to freedom of expression, considering the information's prior availability. Facts The claimant, John Terry, a well-known professional footballer and captain of the England football team, sought an interim injunction to prevent the defendant, identified as ‘Persons Unknown’ but understood to be Associated Newspapers Ltd (publishers of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday), from publishing details of an alleged extra-marital affair. An initial injunction had been granted by
A woman was arrested and photographed, but the charges were dropped. The police refused to destroy her photo. The court held that police have a common law power to retain photographs of unconvicted individuals for crime prevention purposes, which was proportionate. Facts The appellant, Mrs Rowlands, was arrested by Merseyside Police on suspicion of harassing her neighbour. In accordance with standard procedure, her photograph was taken at the police station. Subsequently, the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed with the charges against her. Mrs Rowlands then requested that the police destroy the photograph. The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
Nigerian parents of a British citizen child were refused leave to remain in the UK. They argued this breached their Article 8 ECHR right to family life. The Court of Appeal held that the child's citizenship was a primary factor but not determinative. Facts The appellants, Mr and Mrs Olotu, were Nigerian citizens who had entered the United Kingdom as visitors and subsequently overstayed their leave. Their daughter, Michelle, was born in the UK in August 1992 and was a British citizen by virtue of section 1(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981, as her mother was ‘settled’ in the
The court upheld an interim injunction preventing a newspaper from publishing details about the claimant's 'second family'. The claimant's and his children's right to privacy (Article 8 ECHR) was deemed to outweigh the newspaper's right to freedom of expression (Article 10). Facts The claimant, Mr Chris Hutcheson, a businessman publicly known as the father-in-law of celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay, sought an interim injunction to prevent News Group Newspapers Ltd (NGN), publishers of The Sun, from publishing details about his private life. The information concerned the existence of a ‘second family’, including a partner and two teenage children, which was not
Actors Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones contracted with OK! magazine for exclusive wedding photos. Rival magazine Hello! published unauthorised photos. The court found Hello! liable to OK! for breach of commercial confidence, confirming that private information, once commodified, gains commercial protection. Facts The claimants, Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, were famous actors who sold exclusive photographic rights to their 2000 wedding to Northern & Shell plc, publishers of OK! magazine, for £1 million. The wedding was a private event with stringent security measures to prevent unauthorised photography. Despite this, a freelance photographer, Rupert Thorpe, infiltrated the wedding and took unauthorised
The owners of a country estate near an RAF base sued the Ministry of Defence in nuisance due to severe noise from Harrier jet training. The court found a nuisance existed but, due to the public interest, refused an injunction and awarded damages. Facts The claimants, Mr and Mrs Dennis, were the owners of Walcot Hall, a valuable country estate in Northamptonshire located near RAF Wittering. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) used RAF Wittering as a key base for training pilots for Harrier jets. The training exercises, which involved low flying and circuit training, generated exceptionally loud and frequent noise,
Model Naomi Campbell, who had publicly denied drug use, was photographed leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. The House of Lords held that the newspaper's publication of these photos and details of her therapy breached her right to privacy under the Human Rights Act. Facts The claimant, Ms Naomi Campbell, was a world-famous supermodel who had publicly stated that, unlike many in the fashion world, she did not take drugs. The respondent, MGN Ltd, was the publisher of the ‘Daily Mirror’ newspaper. MGN received information that Ms Campbell was in fact a drug addict and was attending meetings of Narcotics Anonymous
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against extradition to Poland. It ruled that extraditing the appellant, a long-term UK resident with a British family, would be a disproportionate breach of his right to family life under Article 8 ECHR due to the exceptionally severe impact on his children. Facts The appellant, Mr Michal Andrysiewicz, is a Polish national who has resided in the United Kingdom since 2007. He is married with two young British children and is fully integrated into UK society. In 2022, the Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland, issued a Trade and Cooperation Agreement warrant seeking his extradition
An individual acquired British citizenship through identity fraud. The Supreme Court held that the Home Secretary's decision to treat the citizenship as a nullity has retrospective effect, meaning he was never a citizen, but that any subsequent removal decision engages Article 8 ECHR. Facts The appellant, ‘N3’, an Albanian national, entered the UK in 1999 as a minor. He falsely claimed to be a Kosovan refugee to claim asylum and was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2000. In 2005, on the basis of his fraudulently obtained status, he was naturalised as a British citizen under the British Nationality Act
