Private life in a public society — surveillance measures in a democratic state according to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights

Abstract

The democratic society strives for rules to maintain peace and well -being of the citizens. Rules may limit individuals but shall also give them freedom and safety. Human rights are an essential basis of the democracy; therefore, the European Human Rights Convention plays a pivotal role in ensuring these special and necessary rights and freedoms. Right to private life expressed in Art. 8 of the Convention secures a boundary between a public image and a private one, which, however, tends to be breached. The special bond between an individual and the State strives for balancing their separate interests. Even though the d ichotomy of such a relationship perpetuates around public and private matters, a single person is still a separate being in the society build within a State. According to the European Court of Human Rights’ case-law, the State can interfere with a private life in a way that is prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society, while pursuing a legitimate aim that falls into certain margin of appreciation. However, there is a lively discussion concerning secret surveillance and monitoring of the individuals by the public authorities via obtaining CCTV footage and recordings from street cameras. Data processed in this way falls within the scope of Art. 8 of the Convention and constitutes a private life element. The role of the State is to protect and give freedom to, not freedom from, whereas the role of an individual seems to be to adjust and respect the regulations for the better good. The usage of juxtaposing terminology such as “private” and “public” is crucial, deliberate, and intentional when discussing individual rights in a democratic society. Private life and public society shall be understood and learnt about together, not separately, as the boundaries between them tend to disappear when it comes to the protection of human rights.