9 rue du General de Castelnau 67000 Strasbourg
03 67 07 96 78
Private and family life
Right to life
Prohibition of torture
slavery and forced labor
Right to liberty and security
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
Private and family life
Freedom of conscience and religion
Freedom of expression
Effective remedy
Prohibition of discrimination
Property Protection
The death penalty
Right not to be tried twice
Right to free elections
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There may be no interference by a public authority in exercise of this right only insofar as such interference is prescribed by law and constitutes a measure which, in a democratic society, is necessary for national security, public safety and the economic well-being of the country , the prevention of disorder and the prevention of criminal offences, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Preventing the entry into national territory of a child born to a surrogate mother abroad does not violate Article 8 of the Convention
This decision comes at a time when, like France, many European countries prohibit the use of a surrogate mother.
Thus, in a judgment delivered on September 11, 2014 against Belgium (D. and others v. Belgium), the European Court ruled that preventing the entry of a baby, born in Ukraine from a surrogate mother, on Belgian territory for the time necessary for the necessary checks does not infringe Article 8 of the Convention.
According to the Strasbourg court, while it is indisputable that the separation of the child from his parents during this period constituted an interference with their right to respect for private and family life, this interference was provided for by law and pursued several legitimate goals.
The European Court also recalls that when delicate ethical and moral questions are at stake, the national authorities have a wide margin of appreciation.
It concludes that "the Convention cannot oblige States to authorize entry into their territory of children born of a surrogate mother without the national authorities being able first carry out certain legal checks".
Mass surveillance and phone tapping
On 24 September 2014, a hearing took place before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Roman Zakharov v. Russia.
The applicant, editor-in-chief of a publishing house, complained before the European Court of the fact that the Russian authorities allegedly put him under wiretapping and that the recordings were passed from one state service to another.
The representative of the Government maintained that in Russia all
telephone tapping is regulated by law and that the
authorities use it only with the authorization of a
judicial authority and when circumstances warrant.
However, for the plaintiff, it is the opposite that it is and
that wiretapping in Russia is not regulated by
no legal basis, since the law providing for such a possibility
is not legally published.
After the NSA Surveillance Scandal
American who shook the whole world, the European Court
of Human Rights takes the opportunity to express its views on
the question.
The decision rendered by the Strasbourg court will in all
case law for future cases relating to
mass surveillance, especially in European countries.
The participation of medical students in childbirth without the consent of the mother is contrary to the right to respect for private life
In the Konovalova v. Russia judgment delivered by the European Court on October 9, 2014, the Court held that the birth of the applicant's child was an event sufficiently delicate so that the presence of medical students who had had access to information confidential medical information on his state of health amounted to an interference in the private life of this one.
The internal state legislation which allowed students to participate in the procedure of administering care, as part of their training, did not include any provision guaranteeing the patient's right to privacy.
In these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the domestic law applicable at the relevant time did not include any procedural guarantee against arbitrary interference with private life, the Court considers that the presence of medical students at the birth of the applicant's child was not provided for by law. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 8.