Former KGB officers had been banned from employment in a range of public and private sector jobs, including as lawyers, notaries, bank employees and in the teaching profession. They complained of infringement of Article 8 taken alone and also in conjunction with Article 14. The Government submitted that Article 8 was not applicable as it did not guarantee a right to retain employment or to choose a profession. The court referred to Peck and to Niemietz v Germany, where it was said at paragraph 29 that there appeared to be no reason of principle why the understanding of the notion of ‘private life’ should be taken to exclude activities of a professional or business nature. It is, after all, in the course of their working lives that the majority of people have a significant, if not the greatest, opportunity of developing relationships with the outside world. The court considered (paragraph 47) that a far-reaching ban on taking up private-sector employment does affect private life.
Held: ‘ . . the impugned ban affected, to a significant degree, the possibility for the applicants to pursue various professional activities and that there were consequential effects on the enjoyment of their right to respect for their ‘private life’ within the meaning of Article 8.’
Citations:
59330/00, [2004] ECHR 395, 55480/00, (2004) 42 EHRR 104
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Petrovic v Austria ECHR 27-Mar-1998
The applicant was refused a grant of parental leave allowance in 1989. At that time parental leave allowance was available only to mothers. The applicant complained that this violated article 14 taken together with article 8.
Held: The . .
See Also – Sidabras And Dziautas v Lithuania ECHR 27-Jul-2004
Former KGB officers complained that they were banned, not only from public sector employment, but also from many private sector posts. This ‘affected [their] ability to develop relationships with the outside world to a very significant degree, and . .
Cited by:
Cited – Countryside Alliance and others v HM Attorney General and others Admn 29-Jul-2005
The various claimants sought to challenge the 2004 Act by way of judicial review on the grounds that it was ‘a disproportionate, unnecessary and illegitimate interference with their rights to choose how they conduct their lives, and with market . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M HL 8-Mar-2006
The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than . .
Cited – L, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn 19-Mar-2006
The court considered the duties on the respondent in providing an enhanced criminal record certificate. In one case, the claimant had brought up her son who was made subject to child protection procedures for neglect. Her job involved supervising . .
Cited – Wright and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Secretary of State for Education and Skills Admn 16-Nov-2006
The various applicants sought judicial review of the operation of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults List insofar as they had been placed provisionally on the list, preventing them from finding work. One complaint was that the list had operated . .
Cited – RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 22-Oct-2008
The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was . .
Cited – T, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester and Others CA 29-Jan-2013
Three claimants appealed against refusal of declarations that the response of the police to requests for Criminal Records Bureau enhanced checks, were a disproportionate interference in their right to private and family life, and in particular that . .
Cited – T and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to . .
See Also – Sidabras and Others v Lithuania ECHR 23-Jun-2015
ECHR Article 14
Discrimination
Refusal to reinstate former KGB employee based on legislation previously found to be contrary to the Convention: violation
Facts – The three applicants were former . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.230568
