BibTex RIS Cite

How Do Emergent Information Technologies In Counter-Terrorism Measures Affect Right To Privacy According To Article 8 Of The European Convention Of Human Rights?

Year 2014, Volume: 46 Issue: 63, 159 - 184, 10.08.2015

Elif Mendos Kuşkonmaz

Abstract

Hereafter, the Convenion. Hereafter, the Court. Moreover, suffice it to note that the Convention is not the only supranational human rights instrument for protecting the right to privacy. For example, this right can also be found in the United Nation’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (i.e. ICCPR). However, it is the establishment of the Court makes the Convention more enforceable than those the ICCPR. Lee A. Bygrave, ‘Data Protection Pursuant to the Right to Privacy in Human Rights Treaties’, (1998) 6 Int’ J.L. & Info

Keywords

-

References

  • I. Books
  • Arai-Takahashi Y The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Prin- ciple of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR (Intersentia 2002)
  • Boehm F Information Sharing and Data Protection in the Area of Free- dom, Security and Justice Towards Harmonised Data Protection Principles for Information Exchange at EU-level (Springer 2012)
  • Harris-O’Boyle-Warbirck Law of the European Convention on Hu- man Rights (Oxford University Press 2009).
  • Kuner C Transborder Data Flows and Data Privacy Law (Oxford University Press 2013)
  • Lawson R.A. and Schermers H.G. Leading Cases of the European Court of Human Rights (Ars Aequi Libri 1997)
  • Matscher F ‘Methods of Interpretation of the Convention’,in: R. St. J. Macdonald-F. Matscher-H. Petzold (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, (Martinus Nijhoff 1993)
  • Big Brother and Others v. the United Kingdom (Communication Case) (Application No 58170/13)
  • El Masri v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia App no 39639/09 (ECtHR 13 December 2012)
  • Gaskin v. the United Kingdom (1989) 12 EHRR 36
  • Halford v. the United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 523
  • Handyside v. the United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHRR 737, para. 48
  • Huvig v. France (1990) Series A, No 176-B
  • Kennedy v. the United Kingdom App no 26839/05 (ECtHR 18 May 2010)
  • Klass v. Germany (1978) Series A, No 28
  • Kruslin v. France (1990) Series A, No 176-A
  • Leander v. Sweden (1987) Series B, No 99
  • Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom App no 58243/00 (EC- tHR 1 July 2005)
  • Malone v. the United Kingdom (1984) Series A, No 82
  • Niemitz v. Germany, (1992) 16 EHRR 97
  • P.G. and J.H. v. United Kingdom App no 44787/98 (ECtHR, 25 September 2001)
  • Rotaru v. Romania App no 28341/95 (ECtHR 4 March 2000)
  • Silver v. the United Kingdom (1983) Series A, No 61
  • The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (1979) Series A, No 30
  • Tyrer v. the United Kingdom (1978) Series A No 26
  • Uzun v. Germany, App no 35623/05 (ECtHR 2 September 2010)
  • Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain App no 27671/95 (ECtHR 30 July 1998)
  • Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.) no 54934/00 (ECtHR 29 June 2006)

Year 2014, Volume: 46 Issue: 63, 159 - 184, 10.08.2015

Elif Mendos Kuşkonmaz

Abstract

References

  • I. Books
  • Arai-Takahashi Y The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Prin- ciple of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR (Intersentia 2002)
  • Boehm F Information Sharing and Data Protection in the Area of Free- dom, Security and Justice Towards Harmonised Data Protection Principles for Information Exchange at EU-level (Springer 2012)
  • Harris-O’Boyle-Warbirck Law of the European Convention on Hu- man Rights (Oxford University Press 2009).
  • Kuner C Transborder Data Flows and Data Privacy Law (Oxford University Press 2013)
  • Lawson R.A. and Schermers H.G. Leading Cases of the European Court of Human Rights (Ars Aequi Libri 1997)
  • Matscher F ‘Methods of Interpretation of the Convention’,in: R. St. J. Macdonald-F. Matscher-H. Petzold (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, (Martinus Nijhoff 1993)
  • Big Brother and Others v. the United Kingdom (Communication Case) (Application No 58170/13)
  • El Masri v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia App no 39639/09 (ECtHR 13 December 2012)
  • Gaskin v. the United Kingdom (1989) 12 EHRR 36
  • Halford v. the United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 523
  • Handyside v. the United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHRR 737, para. 48
  • Huvig v. France (1990) Series A, No 176-B
  • Kennedy v. the United Kingdom App no 26839/05 (ECtHR 18 May 2010)
  • Klass v. Germany (1978) Series A, No 28
  • Kruslin v. France (1990) Series A, No 176-A
  • Leander v. Sweden (1987) Series B, No 99
  • Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom App no 58243/00 (EC- tHR 1 July 2005)
  • Malone v. the United Kingdom (1984) Series A, No 82
  • Niemitz v. Germany, (1992) 16 EHRR 97
  • P.G. and J.H. v. United Kingdom App no 44787/98 (ECtHR, 25 September 2001)
  • Rotaru v. Romania App no 28341/95 (ECtHR 4 March 2000)
  • Silver v. the United Kingdom (1983) Series A, No 61
  • The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (1979) Series A, No 30
  • Tyrer v. the United Kingdom (1978) Series A No 26
  • Uzun v. Germany, App no 35623/05 (ECtHR 2 September 2010)
  • Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain App no 27671/95 (ECtHR 30 July 1998)
  • Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.) no 54934/00 (ECtHR 29 June 2006)
There are 28 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Droit Public
Authors

Elif Mendos Kuşkonmaz This is me

Publication Date August 10, 2015
Submission Date August 10, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2014 Volume: 46 Issue: 63

Cite

APA Mendos Kuşkonmaz, E. (2015). How Do Emergent Information Technologies In Counter-Terrorism Measures Affect Right To Privacy According To Article 8 Of The European Convention Of Human Rights?. Annales De La Faculté De Droit d’Istanbul, 46(63), 159-184.
AMA Mendos Kuşkonmaz E. How Do Emergent Information Technologies In Counter-Terrorism Measures Affect Right To Privacy According To Article 8 Of The European Convention Of Human Rights?. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul. August 2015;46(63):159-184.
Chicago Mendos Kuşkonmaz, Elif. “How Do Emergent Information Technologies In Counter-Terrorism Measures Affect Right To Privacy According To Article 8 Of The European Convention Of Human Rights?”. Annales De La Faculté De Droit d’Istanbul 46, no. 63 (August 2015): 159-84.
EndNote Mendos Kuşkonmaz E (August 1, 2015) How Do Emergent Information Technologies In Counter-Terrorism Measures Affect Right To Privacy According To Article 8 Of The European Convention Of Human Rights?. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 46 63 159–184.
IEEE E. Mendos Kuşkonmaz, “How Do Emergent Information Technologies In Counter-Terrorism Measures Affect Right To Privacy According To Article 8 Of The European Convention Of Human Rights?”, Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, vol. 46, no. 63, pp. 159–184, 2015.
ISNAD Mendos Kuşkonmaz, Elif. “How Do Emergent Information Technologies In Counter-Terrorism Measures Affect Right To Privacy According To Article 8 Of The European Convention Of Human Rights?”. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 46/63 (August 2015), 159-184.
JAMA Mendos Kuşkonmaz E. How Do Emergent Information Technologies In Counter-Terrorism Measures Affect Right To Privacy According To Article 8 Of The European Convention Of Human Rights?. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul. 2015;46:159–184.
MLA Mendos Kuşkonmaz, Elif. “How Do Emergent Information Technologies In Counter-Terrorism Measures Affect Right To Privacy According To Article 8 Of The European Convention Of Human Rights?”. Annales De La Faculté De Droit d’Istanbul, vol. 46, no. 63, 2015, pp. 159-84.
Vancouver Mendos Kuşkonmaz E. How Do Emergent Information Technologies In Counter-Terrorism Measures Affect Right To Privacy According To Article 8 Of The European Convention Of Human Rights?. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul. 2015;46(63):159-84.