442 Journal of the Spanish Institute for Strategic Studies N. 4 / 2014 data,58 the surveillance of an individual by GPS and the processing and use of the data obtained thereby,59 the collection and storing of information on an individual’s movements by car or air in a police database60 and the registration of an individual as an “agent” in the files of a (former) State security agent.61 The ECtHR also held that “public information can fall within the scope of private life where it is systematically collected and stored in files held by the authorities. That is all the truer where such information concerns a person’s distant past”;62 “such information (studies, political activities and criminal record)”, when systematically collected and stored in a file held by agents of the State, falls within the scope of “private life” for the purposes of Article 8.1 of the Convention”.63 Furthermore, in the foregoing Weber and Saravia case, the Court takes the view that the transmission of data (collected by the intelligence services) and their use by other authorities, which enlarges the group of persons with knowledge of the personal data intercepted, constitutes a further separate interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 8.64 Once it has been determined that Article 8 applies to the protection of personal data and the existence of interference in the enjoyment of this right, the ECtHR must investigate whether it satisfies the requirements of paragraph 2, i.e., whether the interference is in accordance with the law, pursues a legitimate aim and is necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve this aim. 2.2.1. In accordance with the law As in the foregoing case, the ECtHR notes from its well established case law that the wording “in accordance with the law” requires the impugned measure both to have some basis in domestic law and to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the Preamble to the Convention and inherent in the object and purpose of Article 8. The law must thus be adequately accessible and foreseeable, that is, formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual to regulate his conduct. For domestic law to meet these requirements, it must afford adequate legal 58 Case of L.H. v. Latvia, Judgment of 29 April 2014, paragraph 56. 59 Case of Uzun v. Germany. Judgment of 2 September 2010, paragraph 52. 60 Case of Shimovolos v. Russia. Judgment of 21 June 2011, paragraph 66. 61 Case of Turek v. Slovakia. Judgment of 14 February 2006, paragraph 110. 62 Case of Rotaru v. Romania. Judgment of 4 May 2000, paragraph 43. 63 Case of Rotaru v. Romania. Judgment of 4 May 2000, paragraph 44. 64 Ibid., paragraph 79
REVISTA IEEE 4
To see the actual publication please follow the link above