| Abstract [eng] |
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects a person's private life from unauthorized interference by the state and its institutions or private entities such as media. However, it is recognized that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights , which provides for freedom of expression for individuals to receive and disseminate information has the exact same importance as Article 8. Thus, the implementation of one law inevitably leads to restrictions on another law. In such situations, there is a risk of unduly restricting the right to privacy or freedom of expression. This implies the duty of the European Court of Human Rights to carefully weigh both rights and to strike the right balance. The conflict between the right to a private life and freedom of expression is the result of a variety of relationships. A State has the right to intervene in a person's privacy or to restrict his or her freedom of expression when such restrictions comply with the criteria established by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The media can interfere with both private and public life, and vice versa - individuals' private lives can justifiably restrict the freedom of the media, including other individuals. The European Court of Human Rights, in each case of conflict, thoroughly assesses all the circumstances in which one law may be limited to another. In practice, clear criteria are formulated that help to weigh conflicting articles. Criteria such as the public need to know certain information, the proportionality to the restrictions which are applied, the necessity of a democratic society - all these criteria help the European Court of Human Rights to properly weigh the conflict and avoid an unjustified restriction of rights. |
