1گروه حقوق، واحد نجف‌آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نجف‌آباد، ایران
2نویسنده مسئول، گروه حقوق، واحد نجف‌آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نجف‌آباد، ایران استادیار گروه حقوق، واحد تهران مرکز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
تاریخ دریافت: 10 اردیبهشت 1396،
تاریخ پذیرش: 10 اردیبهشت 1396
چکیده
حق بر حریم خصوصی و حفظ اطلاعات فردی و خانوادگی، یکی از اصول و آزادیهای بنیادینی است که همواره در اسناد بینالمللی متعدد حقوق‌بشری، ازجمله کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر به رسمیت شناخته شده است. کنوانسیون در ماده 8 ابتدا به معرفی حقوق مربوط به حریم خصوصی پرداخته و در بند دوم، امکان محدودکردن آن حقوق را تحت شرایطی پیشبینی کرده است. مقاله حاضر در نظر دارد عملکرد دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر را در مواجهه با ادعاهای نقض حریم خصوصی بر اساس کنوانسیون مزبور و سایر اصول حقوق بینالملل بشر، نقد و بررسی کند و یکپارچگی، ثبات، قطعیت و عادلانه‌بودن رویه دیوان را به محک گذارد. با بررسی رویه دیوان، مشخص میشود که به‌طور کلی، به‌رغم انتقادهای وارد بر عملکرد این نهاد، دیوان توانسته است رویهای ثابت و به‌دور از تزلزل از خود بر جای گذارد که ضمن اینکه مفاد ماده 8 کنوانسیون را اعمال و پاسبانی کرده است، موفق شده است به جهات مختلف، آن را تعدیل کرده و توسعه بخشد.
The Analysis and Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights’ Practice Regarding Alleged Violation of Obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
نویسندگان [English]
Elnaz Rahim Khoi1؛ Hussein Rostamzad2
1Department of Law, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
2Corresponding author, Department of Law, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Tehran University, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
The Right to privacy and protection of private and family data is a one of the most important rights enshrined in various international human rights documents including the European Convention on Human Rights. First, the Convention defines in its article 8, the right to privacy, and then, provides the possibility of the restriction in certain circumstances. This article intends to consider and to criticize the European Court of Human Rights’ practice about the alleged violation of obligations under article 8 of the Convention and other principles of international human rights law, and finally, to examine integrity, stability, certainity and fairness of Court’s case law. The study of the Court’s case law indicates that it has established a solid jurisprudence which determines its applications and develops its instances in the full implementation of the Convention.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
human rights, Right to Privacy, European Court of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, Case Law
مراجع
الف) فارسی
ـ کتاب
انصاری، باقر؛ حقوق حریم خصوصی، سمت،1390.
ـ مقاله
· زمانی، سیدقاسم و سیدعلی حسینی آزاد؛ «تأملی در برخورد دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر با ماده 9 کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر بر پایه پرونده لیلا شاهین»، دوفصلنامه مطالعات حقوق بشر اسلامی، سال سوم، شماره 6، تابستان 1393.
· ویژه، محمدرضا؛ «مفهوم تعهدات مثبت در رویه دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر»، مجله تخصصی الهیات و حقوق، شماره 13، پاییز 1383.
ب) انگلیسی
- Books
Harris, D. J., O’Boyle, M. and Warbrick. C., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, London: Butterworths, 1995.
Mowbray, Alastair, The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, 2004.
The National Academy of Sciences, Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle against Terrorists: A Framework for Program Assessment, USA: The National Academies Press, 2008.
W. B. Simpson, Human Rights and the End of Empire, Britain and the Genesis of the European Convention, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
- Articles
Fred H. Cate, “European Court of Human Rights Expands Privacy Protections: Copland v. United Kingdom”, Online Article on the American Society of International Law, Issue: 21, vol.: 11, 2007.
M. E. Badar, “Basic Principles Governing Limitations on Individual Rights and Freedoms in Human Rights Instruments”, International Journal of Human Rights, 2003.
S. Greer, “The Exceptions to Articles 8 to 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights”, Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing, Human Rights Files, No. 15, 1997.
Sara Frueh, “Preventing Terrorism, Protecting Privacy”, an online article published by the National Academies in Focus, Winter 2009, vol. 8, No. 3.
- Documents
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950.
Protocol 11 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1994.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 22 (48), 20 July 1993.
- Case Laws
Cace of Rayner v. United Kingdom, Application no. 9310/81, ECtHR, 1990.
Case of X. and Y. v. The Netherlands, Application no.8978/80, ECtHR, 1985.
Case of B. v. France, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 232-C.
Case of Bensaid v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 44599/98, ECtHR, 2001.
Case of Berrehab v. Netherlands (judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 138).
Case of Buckland v. The United Kingdom, (Application no. 40060/08), ECtHR, 2012.
Case of Burghartz v. Switzerland, Application no. 16213/90, ECtHR, 1994.
Case of Burghartz v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B.
Case of Copland v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 62617/00, ECtHR, 2007.
Case of Cossey v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 10843/84, ECtHR, 1990.
Case of Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45.
Case of Friedl v. Austria, judgment of 31 January 1995, Series A no. 305-B.
Case of Frisancho Perea v. Slovakia,Application no. 383/13, ECtHR, 2015.
Case of Gillow v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 9063/80, ECtHR, 1986.
Case of Glaser v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 32346/96, ECtHR, 2000.
Case of Hatton and Others v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 36022/97, ECtHR, 2003.
Case of Hokkanen v. Finland, Application no. 19823/92, ECtHR, 1994
Case of Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, Application no. 25198/02, ECtHR, 2009.
Case of Kennedy v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 26839/05, ECtHR, 2010.
Case of Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 26, ECHR 2000-V.
Case of Kruslin v. France, Application no. 11801/85, ECtHR, 1990.
Case of Kuznetsov v. Ukraine, Application no. 39042/97, ECtHR, 2003.
Case of Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 19 February 1997, Reports 1997-I.
Case of Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, Application no. 44774/98, ECtHR, 10 November 2005.
Case of Liberty and Others v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 58243/00, ECtHR, 2008.
Case of López Ostra v. Spain (judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C).
Case of Malone v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 8691/79, ECtHR, 1984.
Case of Silver and Others v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 5947/72; 6205/73; 7052/75; 7061/75; 7107/75; 7113/75; 7136/75, ECtHR, 1983.
Case of the Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 6538/74, ECtHR, 1979.
Weber and Saravia v. Germany, Application no. 54934/00, 2006.
CASE OF X. and Y. v The Netherlands, Application no. 8978/80, ECtHR, 1985.
Case of Stubbings and Others v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 22083/93; 22095/93, ECtHR, 1996.
Ferdinand Jozef COLON against the Netherlands (Decision), Application no. 49458/06, ECtHR, 2012.
Lawless v. Republic of Ireland (Appl 332/57); (1960-61) 1 ECtHR, Series B.56, para. 82; (1960-61) 3 ECtHR, Series A.3 (Court).
ابتدای صفحه