| Applicant name | X. |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Country | Iceland |
| Decision no. | 6825/74 |
| Date | 18/05/1976 |
| Judges | –
|
| Institution | Commission |
| Type | Decision |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Inadmissible |
| Reason | Ratione materiae |
| Type of privacy | Relational privacy |
| Keywords | Relationship with pet disturbed; personality right; positive freedom |
| Facts of the case | Man keeps dog, but is nu longer allowed due to decree by municipality. |
| Analysis | The outcome of this case is straitforward: the relationship between teh applicant and his dog is not protected under the material scope of the notion of ‘private life’ as contained in Article 8 ECHR. However, the Commission for the very first time makes abundantly clear that the right to privacy is not only a negative right, providing protection from interference, but also a positive right, providing, inter alia, the right to create and maintain relationships. ‘For numerous anglo-saxon and French authors the right to respect for “private life” is the right to privacy, the right to live, as far as one wishes, protected from publicity. In the opinion of the Commission, however, the right to respect for private life does not end there. It comprises also, to a certain degree, the right to establish and to develop relationships with other human beings, especially in the emotional field for the development and fultilment of one’s own personality.’ Still, such positive right only relates to interhuman relationships, not with animals. The Commission ads: ‘It can further be mentioned that the keeping of dogs is by the very nature of that animal necessarily associated with certain interferences with the Irfe of others and even with the public life.’ |
| Documents | Decision |