Guide on Article 8 of the Convention – Right to respect for private and family life
ducing sexist stereotypes in court decisions, playing down gender-based violence and exposing women to secondary victimisation by making guilt-inducing and judgmental comments that were capable of undermining victims’ trust in the justice system (J.L. v. Italy, §§ 139-141). 113. In cases of domestic violence, the Court also holds States responsible for protecting victims, particularly when the risks of violence are known by State officers and when officers fail to enforce measures designed to protect victims of violence (Levchuk v. Ukraine; Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria; A v. Croatia; Hajduová v. Slovakia; Kalucza v. Hungary; B. v. Moldova). The State also has a positive responsibility to protect children from witnessing domestic violence in their homes (Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova). The Court will also apply its child custody and care jurisprudence (see below), with particular deference to removal decisions based on patterns of domestic violence in the home (Y.C. v. the United Kingdom). In Buturugă v. Romania, the Court emphasised the need to comprehensively address the phenomenon of domestic violence in all its forms. In examining the applicant’s’ allegations of cyberbullying and her request to have the family computer searched, it found that the national authorities had been overly formalistic in dismissing any connection with the domestic violence which she had already reported to them. The applicant had been obliged to submit a new complaint alleging a breach of the confidentiality of her correspondence. In dealing with it separately, the authorities had failed to take into consideration the various forms that domestic violence could take. 114. States should also provide adequate protection for dangerous situations, such as for a woman attacked in her home or for a woman who had acid thrown on her face (Sandra Janković v. Croatia; Ebcin v. Turkey). This is particularly true when the State should have known of a particular danger. For example, the Court found a violation when a woman was attacked by stray dogs in an area where such animals were a common problem (Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v. Romania, § 62). 115. However, the Court does require a connection between the State and the injury suffered. If there is no clear link between State action (or inaction) and the alleged harm, such as fighting between school children, then the Court may declare the case inadmissible (Đurđević v. Croatia). 116. Conditions of detention may give rise to an Article 8 violation, in particular where the conditions do not attain the level of severity necessary for a violation of Article 3 (Raninen v. Finland, § 63 ; Szafrański v. Poland, § 39). Also, the requirement to undergo a strip search will generally constitute an interference under Article 8 (Milka v. Poland, § 45).
2. Reproductive rights 18 117. The Court has found that the prohibition of abortion when sought for reasons of health and/or wellbeing falls within the scope of the right to respect for one’s private life and accordingly within Article 8 (A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], §§ 214 and 245). In particular, the Court held in this context that the State’s obligations include both the provision of a regulatory framework of adjudication and enforcement machinery protecting individuals’ rights, and the implementation, where appropriate, of specific measures (ibid., § 245; Tysiąc v. Poland, § 110; R.R. v. Poland, § 184). Indeed, once the State, acting within its limits of appreciation, adopts statutory regulations allowing abortion in some situations, the legal framework derived for this purpose should be shaped in a coherent manner which allows the different legitimate interests involved to be taken into account adequately and in
18
See also Medically assisted procreation/right to become genetic parents under Family life.
European Court of Human Rights
32/161
Last update: 31.08.2021
