Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Pretty v. United Kingdom [2002] – Article 8 extends to protect the right to die. Like with articles 9, 10 and 11, it can be interfered with provided there is valid justification, as there was in Pretty. Mosley v News Group Newspapers [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) — Per Eady J, equitable breach of confidence is extended to protect Art. 8 rights.
The test was developed in the Handyside v.United Kingdom, Silver v. United Kingdom, and Lingens v. Austria cases, related to freedom of expression. It has also been invoked in cases involving state surveillance, which the court acknowledges can constitute an Article 8 violation but may be "strictly necessary for safeguarding the democratic institutions" (Klass and Others v.
Pages in category "Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights" The following 49 pages are in this category, out of 49 total. This list may not reflect recent changes .
A, B and C v Ireland is a landmark 2010 case of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to privacy under Article 8.The court rejected the argument that article 8 conferred a right to abortion, but found that Ireland had violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to provide an accessible and effective procedure by which a woman can have established whether she qualifies ...
DHDR Article 21 is focused on formulating the duty and responsibility to respect and ensure the physical, psychological and personal integrity of all members of the human family in all circumstances, including in situations of armed conflict, reformulating UDHR articles 10-12 dedicated to the rights to personal integrity and respect for privacy.
The Human Rights Council welcomed Ruggie’s report and extended his mandate until 2011 with the task of "operationalising" and "promoting" the framework. [8] The Human Rights Council asked Ruggie to provide concrete recommendations on how the state could prevent abuses by the private sector, to elaborate on the scope of corporate ...
The ECtHR concluded that Article 8 (providing the right to respect for private and family life) had been breached. [86] Legislative changes made in 2013 imposed harsher penalties upon perpetrators of domestic violence and placed the onus upon the prosecution, and not the victim, to pursue legal action. [85]
The Court rendered a judgement that Armenia has been continuing to violate Article 1 (Protection of property) of the Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (Right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. [11]