Applicant name X.
Applicant type Natural Person (prisoner)
Country Austria
Decision no. 3053/67
Date 02/10/1967
Institution Commission (Plenary)
Type Decision
Outcome Art. 8 Inadmissible
Reason Manifestly ill-founded; health and morals
Type of privacy Family Privacy
Keywords Prisoner; custody; family life; even if;
Facts of the case Man is convicted (wrongly, he believes). He complains, inter alia, about the fact that during his imprisonment, his son was not taken care of and was not returned to him after his release.
Analysis Interestingly, the applicants relies on article 12, but the Commission discusses his complain under Article 8 ECHR, making clear that the right to marry and found a family is limited to the act of marrying and the act of founding a family, in particular, procreation, while the right to privacy is broader, and provides protection to the already founded family, which may result in both negative and positive obligations for Member States. Under Article 8, the Commission emphasizes that although the measures taken might have damaged the applicant’s family life, these were justified for the ‘protection of health or morals’, in this case, the protection of his son. The applicant also puts forward that he should not have been convicted for having assisted his son in his efforts to elude the directions for his education as he was acting under an irresistible force to save his son from becoming a criminal. On this point, the commission find that such might be deemed legitimate in light of the prevention of disorder and crime. Importantly, both decisions are ‘even if’ judgements, in which the Commission stresses that, ‘assuming that in the circumstances of the present case a question might arise under Article 8’, such an interference would in any case be legitimate under the terms of the second paragraph of Article 8 ECHR.
Documents Decision