| Facts of the case |
Man has a professional dispute and starts a legal proceeding at national level, but is denied in his claim by the national courts. Both he and his wife claim a variety of Convention violations, one of which concerned Article 8 ECHR, namely that because the man was rejected in his claims, which according to both was “totally unjustified”, the man had to flee their home to avoid the execution of his sentence, depriving them of a normal private and family life.
|
| Analysis |
The Commission makes clear that the wife can also claim to be a victim, although she is not directly affected by the chain of events, she is so indirectly. Even with regard to the claim of a violation of Article 1 P1, she is received in her claim, although both are married in separation of property.
With respect to Article 8 ECHR, the Commission is short: ‘Que le grief concernant l’article 8 (art. 8) de la Convention ne se justifie pas davantage; qu’en effet, le requérant a quitté son foyer de sa propre initiative; que si, de surcroît, il ne s’était pas soustrait jusqu’ici à l’exécution de sa peine, il aurait subi, durant son emprisonnement, des limitations à l’exercice des droits énoncés au paragraphe 1er de l’article 8 (art. 8-1), limitations qui, sauf abus eventuel, eussent été compatibles avec le paragraphe 2 (art. 8-2) du même article.’
The man has decided to flee from his home on his own volition, thus any potential infringement on his right to privacy was the result of his own actions. He had no legitimate reason to flee, because the imprisonment he tried to escape was a legitimate limitation of his right to privacy.
|