CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 février 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. February 1998 Botta v. Italy - 21439/93 Judgment 24.2.1998 Article 8 Positive obligations Article 8-1 Respect for private life State’s failure to take measures to remedy omissions imputable to private bathing establishments which prevented disabled people from gaining access to a beach and the sea: Article 8 not applicable [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION Private life: includes person’s physical and psychological integrity – guarantee afforded by Article 8 of Convention primarily intended to ensure development, without outside interference, of personality of each individual in his relations with other human beings. Applicant complained in substance of lack of action by State. Article 8: essential object to protect individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities – does not merely compel State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this negative undertaking there may be positive obligations inherent in effective respect for private or family life. These may involve adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life even in sphere of relations of individuals between themselves. Concept of respect: not precisely defined – regard to be had to fair balance that has to be struck between general interest and interests of the individual, while State has, in any event, a margin of appreciation. Court has held that a State has obligations of this type where it has found a direct and immediate link between measures sought by an applicant and latter’s private and/or family life. Right asserted by applicant (to gain access to beach and sea at a place distant from his normal place of residence during his holidays) concerned interpersonal relations of such broad and indeterminate scope that there could be no conceivable direct link between measures State was urged to take and applicant’s private life. Conclusion : Article 8 not applicable (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 14 TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 8 Article 14: no room for its application unless facts of case fall within ambit of one or more of Convention’s provisions – as Court had concluded that Article 8 was not applicable, could not apply to present case. Conclusion : Article 14 inapplicable (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes