Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Right to Privacy for Children on the Internet: New Developments in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Minding Minors Wandering the Web: Regulating Online Child Safety

Part of the book series: Information Technology and Law Series ((ITLS,volume 24))

Abstract

In recent years, the European Court of Human Rights has published an increasing number of decisions on the right to privacy for children online. In its case law, the Court addresses the vulnerable position of minors in a digital environment. The aim of this chapter is two fold. First, it seeks to analyse recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to respect for private life (Article 8 ECHR) for children on the Internet. Second, it aims to investigate and critically discuss whether the characteristics of online modes of communications have sufficiently been taken into account by the European Court in its case law on the right to privacy for children.

Dr. M. M. Groothuis is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law of Leiden University in the Netherlands.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    K.U. v. Finland, no. 2872/02, 2 December 2008.

  2. 2.

    Harris et al. 2009, pp. 361–362.

  3. 3.

    White and Ovey 2010, p. 364.

  4. 4.

    Niemietz v. Germany, no. 13710/88, 16 December 1992.

  5. 5.

    Harris et al. 2009, pp. 366–371; cf. White and Ovey 2010, pp. 358–359.

  6. 6.

    Gaskin v. United Kingdom, no. 10454/83, 7 July 1989.

  7. 7.

    X and Y v. The Netherlands, no. 8978/80, 26 March 1985.

  8. 8.

    Von Hannover v. Germany No. 1, no. 59320/00, 24 June 2004.

  9. 9.

    White v. Sweden, no. 42435/02, 19 September 2006.

  10. 10.

    Dudgeon t. United Kingdom, no. 7525/76, 22 October 1981.

  11. 11.

    Slivenko et al v. Latvia, no. 48321/99, 9 October 2003.

  12. 12.

    Gerards 2012, pp. 178–179.

  13. 13.

    Harris et al. 2009, p. 363.

  14. 14.

    An extensive analysis of the interpretation of these criteria in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) can be found in White and Ovey 2010, pp. 312–333.

  15. 15.

    ECtHR 2011, p. 4, available at www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/A055F9CF-47DA-408A-9D90-BBEF8014BB8A/0/RAPPORT_RECHERCHE_Child_sexual_abuse_EN.pdf.

  16. 16.

    M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, 4 December 2003. An overview and analysis of the case law of the ECtHR on the positive obligation for states to provide sanctions under criminal law can be found in Tulkens 2011, pp. 582–595.

  17. 17.

    See also on this case: Hughes 2012, pp. 29–30.

  18. 18.

    In 1996 the European Committee on Crime Problems set up a committee of experts to deal with cybercrime. The Convention on Cybercrime was opened for signature on 23 November 2001 and entered into force on 1 July 2004. An analysis of this European treaty, which binds the Contracting Parties to provide criminal sanctions for various forms of online child abuse, can be found in Clough 2012, pp. 367–387.

  19. 19.

    These include Recommendation No. R (95) 13 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning problems of criminal procedural law connected with information technology and Resolutions 55/63 of 4 December 2000 and 56/121 of 19 December 2001 of the General Assembly of the United Nations on Combating the criminal misuse of information technologies.

  20. 20.

    This was also emphasised by Murphy and Ó Cuinn, who investigated the Court’s stand towards ‘new technologies’: Murphy and Ó Cuinn 2010, p. 636.

  21. 21.

    Murphy and Ó Cuinn 2010.

  22. 22.

    Murphy and Ó Cuinn 2010, pp. 601–638.

  23. 23.

    The selection was made by applying twenty key words, referring to (elements of) the Internet (such as ‘web page’, ‘online) or to related applications of information and communication technologies (such as ‘computer’, ‘server’), on the collection of the Court’s decisions on complaints under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR, published on the English language section of the HUDOC website (www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/Homepage_EN) in the years 2005–2012.

  24. 24.

    Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG and Krone Multimedia GmbH & Co KG v. Austria, no. 33497/07, 17 January 2012. See also: Kurier Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei GmbH v. Austria, no. 3401/07, 17 January 2012.

  25. 25.

    Perrin v. United Kingdom, no. 5446/03, 18 October 2005. Cf. Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v. Switzerland, no. 16354/06, 13 July 2012, in which the Court also refers to the extent to which the website of the application organisation is accessible to minors.

  26. 26.

    Cf. Court of Justice EU, 6 November 2003, C-101/01 (Lindqvist).

  27. 27.

    S. and Marper v. United Kingdom, nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, 4 December 2008; Bouchacourt v. France, no. 5335/06, 17 December 2009; Gardel v. France, no. 16428/05, 17 December 2009; M.B. v. France, no. 22115/06, 17 December 2009; Liberty v. United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, 1 July 2008. In these judgments, the Court refers to its earlier case law in which it had formulated principles and safeguards to be respected in case of secretly monitoring communication: inter alia Malone v. United Kingdom, no. 8691/79, 2 August 1984 and Rotaru v. Romania, 28341/95, 4 May 2000. See for an analysis of this case law: Heringa and Zwaak 2006, pp. 666–674 and 734–738.

  28. 28.

    Axel Springer AG v. Germany, no. 39954/08, 7 February 2012.

  29. 29.

    Von Hannover v. Germany No. 2, nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, 7 February 2012.

  30. 30.

    An exception is Mavlov v. Bulgaria, no. 1638/03, 23 June 2008, in which the Court did, in a case concerning the right to family life of a child who was expulsed from Austria to Bulgaria, refer to Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  31. 31.

    A. v. United Kingdom, no. 100/1997/884/1096, 23 September 1998.

  32. 32.

    See on the legality of regulating simulated child pornography: Nair 2010, pp. 223–232, McIntyre 2010, pp. 209–221.

  33. 33.

    Clough 2012, pp. 381–382. ‘Grooming’ can be defined as “the process by which a child is befriended by a would-be abuser in an attempt to gain the child’s confidence and trust, enabling them to get the child to acquiesce to abusive activity”: Gillespie 2002, pp. 411–412.

  34. 34.

    Langos 2012, pp. 285–289; Gillespie 2006, pp. 123–136.

  35. 35.

    Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG and Krone Multimedia GmbH & Co KG v. Austria, para 60.

  36. 36.

    Von Hannover v. Germany No. 2, para 112.

  37. 37.

    See for an overview and analysis of case law on social media and the right to privacy in The Netherlands and in Europe: Lodder 2012.

  38. 38.

    Sartor and Viola de Azevedo Cunha 2010, p. 357.

  39. 39.

    Sentenza n. 1972/2010. Tribunale Ordinario di Milano in composizione monocratica. Sezione 4 Penale, available at http://speciali.espresso.repubblica.it/%2Fpdf/Motivazioni_sentenza_Google.pdf. An analysis of this case and critical comments on the decision of the Court can be found in Sartor and Viola de Azevedo Cunha 2010, pp. 356–378.

  40. 40.

    Corte d’Appello di Milano, case 4889/2010, available at www.penalecontemporaneo.it/upload/1362065204Sentenza%20appello%20google.pdf. An English summary of the decision of the Court of Appeal is available at http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8a202daf-549a-4abc-b242-1baf983ee355.

  41. 41.

    Cf. Hull 2012, for an analysis of the debate on judges using online social networks in the United States.

References

  • Clough J (2012) The Council of Europe convention on cybercrime: defining ‘crime’ in a digital world. Crim Law Forum 23:363–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Court of Human Rights (2011) Child sexual abuse and child pornography in the Court’s case law—research report, Council of Europe 2011. www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/A055F9CF-47DA-408A-9D90-BBEF8014BB8A/0/RAPPORT_RECHERCHE_Child_sexual_abuse_EN.pdf

  • Gerards J (2012) The prism of fundamental rights. Eur Const Law Rev 8(2):173–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie AA (2002) Child protection on the internet-challenges for criminal law. Child Fam Law Q 14:411–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie AA (2006) Cyber-bullying and harassment of teenagers: the legal response. J Soc Welf Fam Law 28(2):123–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris D, O’Boyle M, Bates E, Buckley C (eds) (2009) Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Heringa AW, Zwaak L (2006) Right to respect for privacy (article 8). In: Van Dijk P, Van Hoof F, Van Rijn A, Zwaak L (eds) Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes K (2012) The child’s right of privacy and article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Law Childhood Stud Curr Legal issues 14:1–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull B (2012) Why can’t we be ‘friends’? A call for a less stringent policy for judges using online social networking. Hastings Law J 63:595–631

    Google Scholar 

  • Langos C (2012) Cyberbullying: the challenge to define. Cyberpsychology. Behav Soc Netw 15(6):285–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodder AR (2012) Recht rond cyberwar, het internet van dingen en andere internet(on)gemakken [Law on cyber war, the internet of things and other aspects of the internet]. Free University, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre TJ (2010) Blocking child pornography on the internet: European Union developments. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 24(3):209–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy T, Ó Cuinn G (2010) Works in progress: new technologies and the European Court of Human Rights. Hum Rights Law Rev 10(4):601–638

    Google Scholar 

  • Nair A (2010) Real porn and pseudo porn: the regulatory road. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 24(3):223–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartor G, Viola de Azevedo Cunha M (2010) The Italian Google-case: privacy, freedom of speech and responsibility of providers for user-generated contents. Int J Law Inf Technol 18(4):356–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulkens F (2011) The paradoxical relationship between criminal law and human rights. J Int Crim Justice 9:577–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White RCA, Ovey C (2010) Jacobs, White and Ovey: the European convention on human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Marga M. Groothuis

Authors
  1. Marga M. Groothuis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marga M. Groothuis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. eLaw – Center for law in the information society, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Simone van der Hof

  2. eLaw – Center for law in the information, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Bibi van den Berg

  3. Faculty of Law eLaw – Centre for Law in the Information, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Bart Schermer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 © T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Groothuis, M.M. (2014). The Right to Privacy for Children on the Internet: New Developments in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. In: van der Hof, S., van den Berg, B., Schermer, B. (eds) Minding Minors Wandering the Web: Regulating Online Child Safety. Information Technology and Law Series, vol 24. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-005-3_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation