PDF

TetianaFULEY,

Head of Department, National School of Judges of Ukraine, Candidate of Law, Honored Lawyer of Ukraine

INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE ARTICLE 8 OF THE ECHR: UKRAINIAN DIMENSION

The article is dedicated to the concept of “interference” by a public authority with the rights within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention.

The object of Article 8 is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities therefore the concept of “interference” is a crucial point to be understand by national authority in order to comply with the conditions are set out in paragraph 2 of Article 8 upon which a State may interfere with the enjoyment of a protected right.

Based on the research of more than 60 ECtHR’ judgements against Ukraine where Article 8 was applicable the author analyzed measures constituted an “interference” with the right to respect for private or family life, home, or correspondence as well as the measures taken by the authorities which affected more than one of the four interests identified in the Article 8.

The Court examines whether there has been an interference with that right guaranteed by Article 8 after it determines that the applicant’s claim falls within the scope of Article 8.

It is outlined that the Court has repeatedly affirmed that any interference by a public authority with an individual’s right to respect for private life or family life, home and correspondence must be with in accordance with the law therefore judicial review of the necessity of the measure is of particular importance in this respect. This is the reason the author stressed on the role of the national courts to prevent arbitrary interference or assess the specific measures constituted an interference whether they comply with the conditions are set out in paragraph 2 of Article 8, first of all, whether they are “in accordance with the law” or “prescribed by law”.

Key words: interference, violation, ECtHR judgement ECtHR, respect, private life, family life, home, correspondence, court.

References

On Amendments to the Economic Procedural Code of Ukraine, the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine and other legislative acts: Law of Ukraine of December 15, 2017 No. 2147-VIII // Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. 2017. № 48. Art. 436. URL: http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2147-19. [ukr.]

Violations by Article and by State 1959–2017. URL: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_1959_2017_ENG.pdf. [engl.]

Violations by Article and by respondent State (2012). URL: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_2012_ENG.pdf. [engl.]

Violations by Article and by respondent State 2017. [URL: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_2017_ENG.pdf. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in the case of Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [Grand Chamber] of 27 June 2017, Application No. 931/13. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-175121. [engl.]

Final training for trainers on teaching the Convention and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. URL: http://www.nsj.gov.ua/en/news/zavershalniy-trening-dlya-treneriv-z-vikladannya-konventsii-ta-praktiki-evropeyskogo-sudu-z-prav-ludini/. [engl.]

Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language: in Vol. 11, Vol. 1, 1970. URL: http://sum.in.ua/s/vtruchatysja. [ukr.]

ECtHR judgment in Sagan c. Ukraine of October 23, 201, application No. 60010/08. Access URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187492. [engl.]

A practical guide to admissibility. Conseil de l'Europe / Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, 2014 [Council of Europe / European Court of Human Rights], 2014. 128 p. URL: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_UKR.pdf. [engl.]