308 / 532
292
ALLA TYMOFEYEVA
CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ
byla přijata až po roce 2000. S ohledem na zásadu, že Úmluva je „živý instrument“,
je možné očekávat další vývoj těchto práv.
Key words:
Article 8, European Court of Human Rights, European Convention on
Human Rights, ECtHR, ECHR, Convention, Court, respect for private and family life,
his home and his correspondence, private life, family life, home, correspondence, business
premises.
On the Author:
JUDr. Alla Tymofeyeva Ph.D. works in the area of European
Convention Law. Her Ph.D. was acquired in 2011 at the Law Faculty of Charles
University in Prague after successfully defending her thesis ‘Access to independent and
impartial court as a fair trial guarantee under the European Convention on Human
Rights’. During her studies in Prague she was the recipient of the Scholarship
for Ukrainians of the International Visegrad Fund (IVF). In 2009 she undertook
a traineeship at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Currently she is a post-doctoral researcher at the Department of International Law
of the Law Faculty, Charles University in Prague, and also a member of the Czech
Society of International Law.
1. Introduction
The present article will address the right to respect for private and family life as
envisaged by Article 8 of the provisions of the European Convention on Human
Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”). The question is whether legal
persons conducting business activities in the Council of Europe member states enjoy
this right and, if yes, to what extent?
If we have a look at the title of Article 8 of the Convention
2
from the point of
view of applicability to legal entities, it sounds quite bizarre. What private and family
life can a legal person have? It is absolutely clear that a business entity or a non-profit
organisation is not supposed to create a family except for that situation where a big
corporation having sub-companies is considered to be a “family”. In some Slavonic
languages, such as Czech, Russian and Ukrainian, a subsidiary company is even called
a “daughter company”, if we make a word to word translation.
3
Nevertheless, this is
not what the Convention means by the term “family life”. The notion “family life”
for the European Court of Human Rights
4
(hereinafter referred to as “the Court”) is
a relationship between individuals; for example, the ties between the applicant and
her son,
5
or the relationship between father, mother and their daughter,
6
or between
the applicant and her daughters
7
and even the relationship of a cohabiting same-
2
“Right to respect for private and family life”.
3
For example, in Czech an affiliated company is called “dceřina společnost”, in Russian it is “dochernyaya
kompaniya” and in Ukrainian “dochirnya kompaniya”.
4
The body, which interprets the Convention.
5
Y.U. v. Russia
, no. 41354/10, § 95, 13 November 2012.
6
Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway
, no. 265/07, § 53, 31 July 2008.
7
Nunez v. Norway
, no. 55597/09, § 65, 28 June 2011.