Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Article 8 clearly provides a right to be free of unlawful searches, but the Court has given the protection for "private and family life" that this article provides a broad interpretation, taking for instance that prohibition of private consensual homosexual acts violates this article.
The family rights [1] or right to family life are the rights of all individuals to have their established family life respected, and to start, have and maintain a family. . This right is recognised in a variety of international human rights instruments, including Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and ...
Article 2 protects the right of every person to their life. The right to life extends only to human beings, not to animals, [23] nor to "legal persons" such as corporations. [23] In Evans v United Kingdom, the court ruled that the question of whether the right to life extends to a human embryo fell within a state's margin of appreciation.
Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides for two constituent rights: the right to marry and the right to found a family. [1] With an explicit reference to ‘national laws governing the exercise of this right’, Article 12 raises issues as to the doctrine of the margin of appreciation, and the related principle of subsidiarity most prominent in European Union Law.
He appealed the decision on the grounds that it would breach his rights to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as he had three young children in the UK ...
Thus, in order to secure an individual's right to family life, the State may not only be obliged to refrain from interference therein, but positively to facilitate for example family reunions or parents' access to their children. The most prominent field of application of positive obligations is Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
For example, in the Baumbast case, the Court held that when a child has a right of residence in a Member State according to Union law, this also means that his parent(s) should also have a right of residence due to the principle of respect for family life enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [13]
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.