Legal Personality Privacy and the Family

To understand the difference between the two types of rights, one can refer to Feinberg, who defined injury as a setback for interests and distinguished between two types of interests. According to one of them, a person`s ultimate goals and aspirations are his most important goals: goals such as producing good novels or works of art, solving a crucial scientific problem, obtaining high political office, successfully educating a family []. By a completely different and equally plausible standard, however, a person`s most important interests are by no means as great and impressive as these. Rather, it is his interests, presumably of a kind shared by almost all his fellows, in the means necessary for his more definitive ends, whatever they may be or become later. This category includes interests in survival for a foreseeable period of life and interests in one`s own physical health and strength, the integrity and normal functioning of one`s own body, the absence of pain and suffering or grotesque disfigurement […]. 178 Therefore, the first category of ulterior motives, as Feinberg puts it, are the interests that protect the individual`s desire to lead as satisfying a life as possible. In contrast, the second category, as Feinberg calls it, of welfare interests protects everyone`s concerns about the minimum necessities of human life. The Convention was adopted in 1950 and emerges in many ways from the ashes of the Second World War.16 It “is a product of the period following the Second World War, when the issue of the international protection of human rights attracted great attention. These rights were undermined by the atrocities of Nazism, and ensuring their protection at the national level proved woefully inadequate.

17 Like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which the European Convention expressly refers in its preamble18 and on which it largely relies19, the Convention is primarily aimed at limiting the power of totalitarian states and fascist regimes. It is not surprising that the documents contained in both documents, which reflect the discussions of the authors of both texts, are full of references to the atrocities of the Holocaust and other horrors of recent decades. Even with regard to the right to data protection, which is perhaps intuitively most associated with the notion of privacy, the former Commission and the Court initially approached this doctrine from the perspective of a number of provisions of the Convention. When the EU Data Protection Directive came into force in 1995, Paul de Hert assessed the extent to which its provisions were already protected by the ECHR. It referred not only to Article 8, but also to Articles 5 and 6 when analysing the procedural requirements of the data protection rules, Article 13 for access to personal data, Article 10 for the analysis of the right to information on the processing of personal data and Article 9 when assessing the issue of the specific protection of personal data. Sensitive. With regard to the guarantee of the data protection provisions of the Convention, he said: “Article 8 of the ECHR is an important point of reference, but far from being the only one. In the performance of its tasks in the field of education and teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to provide such education and instruction in accordance with their religious and philosophical convictions. However, quite early in its jurisprudence, in the famous Linguistique case of 1968, the Court discussed both the right to education and the right to privacy, a question concerning a Belgian law according to which French-speaking parents living in the Dutch-speaking part of the country could only provide their children with an education in French if they sent them to the other part of the country.123 In conclusion, I would like to say that: The Court has recognized a wide range of rights not included in the Convention, particularly with regard to the right to privacy. These include the right to data protection, a clean and healthy living environment and the right of minorities to protect, develop and express their minority identity. Again, these are just a few of the examples; another example could be the right to a name, which is not recognised by either the UDHR or the ECHR, but is accepted in subsequent human rights documents.161 Nevertheless, the Court recognised the right to a name by referring to Article 8 of the ECHR.

“The right to develop and realize one`s personality necessarily includes the right to identity and therefore to name”.162 In the formation, creation and maintenance of one`s own identity, the Court has held that personal names may be of paramount importance. Therefore, he has cases falling within the scope of Art. 8 ECHR, in which a husband complained that she had to take her husband`s surname, even though she was known by her maiden name in her inner circle and in her professional relationships. The Court also recognized that, in certain circumstances, children have the right to choose their first or last name, and finally the Court recognized the right of individuals to change their maiden name.163 Finally, with the spread of computer technology and automated data processing, States are obliged to ensure effective data protection, Since public authorities and commercial organizations are able to: use personal data that threatens the privacy of individuals. Individuals. Of all the articles contained in the Convention, these justifications are the most important in the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR, which states that “everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, home and correspondence”. Already in the Declaration, this article was originally clearly entitled “Right not to be subjected to unlawful interference”.21 Similarly, under the Convention, the right to privacy concerns only negative freedoms, unlike other qualified rights that implicitly include positive freedoms, such as the freedom of a person to manifest his religion or belief (Article 9). freedom of expression (Article 10) and freedom of association (Article 11). Moreover, Article 8 of the ECHR does not contain any implied positive obligation, such as Article 2 of the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 8. 5, to inform any arrested person of the reason for his arrest and to bring him before a judge without delay; Article 6 of the obligation to ensure an impartial and efficient judicial system.

and, under Article 3 of the First Protocol, the obligation to hold free elections.22 A State, a municipal council, a municipal corporation, a religious organization, conspirators and other legal persons, as well as natural persons, may be prosecuted for intrusion or invasion of the privacy of any person.