Document Type : Article


Assistant Prof, Department of Law, Faculty of Islamic Studies, Meybod University, Meybod, Iran


One of the most challenging issues in the legal and political systems of countries is to consider a mechanism that can create a reasonable balance between protecting the interests of society on the one hand and respecting the private life of citizens on the other. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights addresses this issue. In paragraph one of this article, the Contracting States are obliged to respect the private life of their citizens and in Paragraph two, while prescribing the interference of governments in the private life of citizens in certain circumstances, enumerates the requirements for this. The present study addresses the question of what is the meaning of private life in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and what are the requirements set forth in paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention which allows governments to interfere in the private life of citizens? The study conducted in this article showed that private life is a broad and dynamic concept according to the European Convention on Human Rights, which encompasses various dimensions and is updated in accordance with cultural and social changes. The interference of the Contracting States in the private life of its citizens shall be permitted only if it is lawful, pursues a legitimate aim and is deemed necessary in the eyes of a democratic society.


Main Subjects

  1.  English

    1. A) Books
    2. Akrivopoulou, C., & Psygkas, A. (2010). Personal Data Privacy and Protection in a Surveillance Era: Technologies and Practices: Technologies and Practices. IGI Global.
    3. Ashworth, Andrew, Zender, Lucia (2014). Preventive Justice. Oxford University Press.
    4. Baudet, T. (2012). The Significance of Borders: Why Representative Government and the Rule of Law Require Nation States. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    4 .Birks, D., & Douglas, T. (2018). Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press.

    1. Brems, E. (2012). Diversity and European Human Rights: Rewriting Judgments of the ECHR. Cambridge University Press.
    2. Conte, A. (2010). Human Rights in the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism: Commonwealth Approaches: The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Springer Science & Business Media.
    3. Council of Europe (2018). The administration and you – A handbook: Principles of administrative law concerning relations between individuals and public authorities. Council of Europe.
    4. Davis, H. (2016). Human Rights Law Directions. Oxford University Press.
    5. De schutter, O. (2010). International Human Rights Law: Cases, Materials, Commentary. Cambridge University Press.
    6. Dickson, B. (2010). The European Convention on Human Rights and the Conflict in Northern Ireland. OUP Oxford.
    7. Gerards, J. (2019). General Principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Cambridge University Press.
    8. Harris, S., & Miles, J. (2011). Family Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. OUP Oxford.
    9. Herring, J. (2020). Medical Law and Ethics. Oxford University Press
    10. Kilkelly, Ursula (2017). The Child and the European Convention on Human Rights: Second Edition. Taylor & Francis.
    11. Londras, F., & Dzehtsiarou, K. (2018). Great Debates on the European Convention on Human Rights. Macmillan International Higher Education.
    12. Marshall, Jill (2014). Human Rights Law and Personal Identity. Routledge.
    13. Merrills, J., & Fisher, J. (2013). Pharmacy Law and Practice. Academic Press.
    14. Moeckli, D. (2016). Exclusion from Public Space: A Comparative Constitutional Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
    15. Mole, N. (2007). Asylum and the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe.
    16. M.Scherpe, J. (2016). European Family Law Volume II: The Changing Concept of ‘Family’ and Challenges for Domestic Family Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Puppinck, G. (2017). Conscientious Objection and Human Rights: A Systematic Analysis. BRILL.
    18. Rainey, B., Wicks, E., & Ovey, C. (2017). Jacobs, White, and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford University Press.
    19. Reid, K.A. (2011). A Practitioner's Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights. Sweet & Maxwell.
    20. Scholtz, W. (2019). Animal Welfare and International Environmental Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. Smartt, U. (2017). Media & Entertainment Law. Taylor & Francis
    22. Stockemer, D. (2017). The Front National in France: Continuity and Change Under Jean-Marie Le Pen and Marine Le Pen. Springer.
    23. Temperman, J., Gunn, T. J., & Evans, M. (2019). The European Court of Human Rights and the Freedom of Religion or Belief. BRILL.
    24. Van Caeneghem, Jozefien (2019). Legal Aspects of Ethnic Data Collection and Positive Action: The Roma Minority in Europe, Springer Nature.
    25. Vermeulen, G., & Lievens, E.(2017). Data Protection and Privacy Under Pressure: Transatlantic tensions, EU surveillance, and big data, Maklu.


    1. B) Cases
    2. Burghartz v. Switzerland, Appl. No 16213/90, 22 February 1994.
    3. Cosrello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No 13134/87, 25 March 1993.
    4. Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No 7525/76, 22 October 1981.
    5. Friend and Countryside Alliance and Others v. the United Kingdom, Appl. Nos 16072/06 and 27809/08, 24 November 2009.
    6. Georgi Nikolaishvili v. Georgia, Appl. No 37084/04, 13 January 2009.
    7. Gillow v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No 9063/80, 24 November 1986.
    8. Guillot v. France, Appl. No 22500/93, 24 October 1996.
    9. Handyside v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No 5493/72, 7 December 1976.
    10. Hatton and others v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No 36022/97, 8 July 2003.
    11. Herczegfalvy v. Austria, Appl. No 10533/83, 24 September 1992.
    12. Khan v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No 35394/97, 12 May 2000.
    13. Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. the United Kingdom, Appl. Nos 21627/93, 21826/93 and 21974/93, 18 January 1995.
    14. Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France, Appl. Nos 21279/02 and 36448/02, 22 October 2007.
    15. Luordo v. Italy, Appl. No 32190/96, 17 July 2003.
    16. Malakhovsky and Pikul v. Belarus, Appl. No 1207/2003, 26 July 2005.
    17. Niemietz v. Germany, Appl. No 13710/88, 16 December 1992.
    18. Olsson v. Sweden, Appl. No 10465/83, 24 March 1988.
    19. Peters v. the Netherlands, Appl. No 21132/93, 6 April 1994.
    20. Pretty v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No 2346/02, 29 April 2002.
    21. S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, Appl. Nos 30562/04 and 30566/04, 4 December 2008.
    22. Salvetti v. Italy, Appl. No 42197/98, 9 July 2002.
    23. Van Kuck v. Germany, Appl. No 35968/97, 12 June 2003.


    References In Persian:

    1. A) Articles
    2. Ahmadinejad, M., & Aminaorroaya, Y. (2016). Doctrine of Margin of Appreciation in Meeting National Interests of Member States of the European Convention on Human Rights. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 71, 93-118 (In Persian).
    3. Hemati, M. (2011), Euthanasia from the perspective of ethics and human rights. Journal of the Bar Association, 212, 159-180 (In Persian).
    4. Mohseni, F. &, Miremad, M. H. (2018). The Bases and Exceptions of Privacy in Islam and Law of Iran from the Public Law Point of View. Legal Educations Govah Bi-quarterly Journal, 2, 251-276 (In Persian).
    5. Sharifi Tarazkoohi, H., & Mobini, J.(2015). The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Public Law Research, 44, 73-103 (In Persian).