In a case highly dependent on its very unusual facts, the Court of Appeal in Griffiths v Tickle ([2021] EWCA Civ 1882) confirmed (in dismissing an appeal) that a mother and father involved in Children Act 1989 proceedings can be identified. It agreed that a previous fact-finding judgment[pdf] by Her Honour Judge Williscroft at Derby County Court in November 2020, in relation to allegations of serious sexual abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, and violence, perpetrated by the husband on his ex-wife over a 10 year period, could be published (with relatively modest redactions relating to family members and the identity of the child). Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Article 8 (Page 1 of 4)
The fourth section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a remarkable judgment in the case of L.B. v. Hungary (application no. 36345/16) on January 12, 2021). The publication of taxpayers’ personal data on the tax authority’s website for failing to fulfil their tax obligations constitutes no violation of the right to private life as established under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Continue reading
In November I will be Chairing a panel on Data Rights and the Rule of Law at the Information Law and Policy Centre’s Annual Conference at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. This got me thinking about data protection, privacy and the Rule of Law more generally. Continue reading
A police force is conducting a criminal investigation into a sexual offence alleged to have been committed, as it happens, by one of its own officers. The force seizes his phone and comes across WhatsApp group chats in which several other officers in its service have posted offensive messages. Continue reading
The Article 8 right to respect for private life has many facets and has often seemed in danger of uncontrolled expansion. The Court of Human Rights has often noted that private life is “not susceptible to exhaustive definition”, embracing “multiple aspects of the person’s physical and social identity”. Continue reading
The first part of this post considered the question of whether Art 8 of the Convention protects corporate reputation and concluded that the Court’s case law does not provide any good justification for this. Continue reading
In contrast to the frequent discussion of the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence establishing that individual reputation falls within the scope of the Article 8 right to ‘private and family life’, the possibility that corporations could claim a Convention right to reputation – under either Art 8 or Article 1 of Protocol 1 (‘A1P1’), the right to property – has not attracted a great deal of attention from commentators. Continue reading
The case of Bogomolova v. Russia concerns the use of an unauthorised photograph of a minor’s face on the front page of a booklet promoting adoption and help for orphans. It proves that the publication of pictures of children without parental consent may have a significant social impact on the family and may violate Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), protecting the right to private and family life. Continue reading
In Fürst-Pfeifer v Austria, the majority of the Fourth Section of the ECtHR ruled that the applicant’s right to private life was outweighed by the freedom of expression of an online publication and offline newspaper. In one of the fiercest and most poignant dissenting opinions I have read to date, Judges Wojtyczek and Kūris label the majority judgment as “a one-sided, unbalanced and … fundamentally unjust judgment” that “panders to prejudice” against persons, like the applicant, “with a history of mental-health problems”. Continue reading
In the case of Sousa Goucha v Portugal ([2016] ECHR 284) the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights held that the dismissal of a domestic defamation action by a gay television presenter was not a breach of his Article 8 right to reputation or of the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14. The Court deferred to the reasoning of the domestic court that a “joke” suggesting that the applicant was female was not defamatory. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2022 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑