In this three part post Hugh Tomlinson QC looks at the development of the case law relating to Article 8 of the European Court of Human Rights, the development of the right to reputation and its potential implications for domestic law. The first part considers the effect of the “positive obligation” to protect Article 8 rights on disputes between private parties.
INTRODUCTION
The approach of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) to Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention has undergone a revolution in recent years. Developments are continuing at an increasing pace and are likely to have profound effects on domestic media law. This post sets out to survey and explain the changes so far and consider likely future developments.
In the first forty odd years of the existence of the ECtHR, the case law on Articles 8 and 10 developed on familiar and straightforward lines. Both Articles were focused on state interference:
- The Article 8 case law concerned interferences by the state with private life, home and correspondence.
- The Article 10 case law concerned interferences by the state with freedom of expression.
As the media coverage about Jon Venables intensifies, it is worth recalling that both Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, who had been convicted as children of a notorious child murder, were in 2001 granted injunctions by the High Court “against the whole world” (contra mundum) preventing their identification. These injunctions remain in force. 
