309 / 532
293
DO LEGAL PERSONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE?
sex couple.
8
We will not, however, find any case when the relationship between two
companies or between an individual and a business entity constitute a “family life”
for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention.
In order to give a better explanation to the rights under Article 8 of the Convention,
it would be of use to quote the first paragraph of this Article, which reads as follows:
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence.” Analysis of this provision of the Convention shows that there are
four dimensions of personal autonomy, namely: 1) private life, 2) family life, 3) home
and 4) correspondence.
9
There are also discussions as to a separate right to reputation.
10
However, in the case of
Petrina v. Romania
11
the Court clearly stated that this is only an
element of the right to private life. The other element of the right to private life is a one’s
name.
12
At the moment, however, there is no case-law in respect of legal persons where
the Court would find on this issue. Therefore, it is hard to say whether the right to the
name of company is guaranteed by Article 8. Authors of the manual on the Convention
entitled
Law of the European Convention on Human Rights
13
write about the following
elements of the right to private life: right to personal identity, moral and physical
integrity, private space, collection and use of information, sexual activities and social
life. Some of these could also easily be invoked by business entities. Consequently,
legal persons, in theory, may allege a violation of their right to “private life”.
Having introduced the main rights under Article 8 of the Convention, let us
have a look on how the Court has ruled as to the applicability of these guarantees to
legal persons.
2. Before 2002
Primarily, the Court took an approach that legal persons may not directly invoke
the rights envisaged by Article 8 of the Convention. In the case of
Open Door and
Dublin Well Woman against Ireland
14
the former Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) has held that a company, namely Open
Door Counselling Ltd.,
had no personal right to respect for private life within
the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention
. Similarly, in the case of
Church of
8
X. and Others v. Austria
[GC], no. 19010/07, § 95, ECHR 2013.
9
ROAGNA, I.
Protecting the right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on
Human Rights
. Council of Europe human rights handbooks. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2012, p. 9.
10
SMET, S.
The Right to Reputation under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Available from
http://strasbourgobservers.com/2010/11/01/the-right-to-reputation-under-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/.
and ROGERS, H.
“Is there a right to reputation?”
Available from
http://inforrm.wordpress.
com/2010/10/26/is-there-a-right-to-reputation-part-1-heather-rogers-qc/.
11
Petrina v. Romania
, no. 78060/01, § 28, 14 October 2008.
12
DE SCHUTTER, O. L’accès des personnes morales à la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme. In:
Avancées et confins actuels des droits de l’homme aux niveaux international, européen et national : mélanges
offerts à Silvio Marcus Helmons.
Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2003, p. 95.
13
HARRIS, D.J., O’BOYLE, M., BATES, E.P., BUCKLEY, C.M.,
Law of the European Convention on
Human Rights
. – 2nd ed., Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, pages 364-371).
14
Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland
, 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246-A.