{"id":167002,"date":"2026-02-09T11:10:36","date_gmt":"2026-02-09T11:10:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/?page_id=167002"},"modified":"2026-04-13T19:08:53","modified_gmt":"2026-04-13T19:08:53","slug":"the-right-to-protection-of-private-and-family-life","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/adjudication\/the-right-to-protection-of-private-and-family-life\/","title":{"rendered":"The Right to Protection of Private and Family Life"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"wpb-content-wrapper\"><div data-sticky class=\"data-sticky\"><div data-parent=\"true\" class=\"vc_row scroll-trigger-el scroll-trigger-el-mobile scroll-trigger-el-tablet scroll-trigger-parent has-bg need-focus style-back_color-309354-bg parallax-move row-container\"data-sticky-trigger=\"scroll-trigger\" data-anim-state=\"end\" data-anim-sticky=\"\" data-anim-els=\"\" data-anim-x=\"0\" data-anim-y=\"0\" data-anim-blur=\"0\" data-anim-perspective=\"0\" data-anim-rotate=\"0\" data-anim-origin=\"center\" data-anim-target=\"el\" data-anim-scale=\"100\" data-anim-scale-step=\"\" data-anim-opacity=\"0\" data-anim-radius=\"\" data-anim-radius-unit=\"\" data-anim-start=\"\" data-anim-top=\"0\" data-anim-bottom=\"85\" data-anim-safe=\"\" data-anim-ease=\"none\" data-parallax-move=\"3\" id=\"row-unique-0\"><div class=\"row-background background-element\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"background-wrapper\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"background-inner\" style=\"background-image: url(https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TEDH.jpg);background-repeat: no-repeat;background-position: center center;background-attachment: scroll;background-size: cover;\"><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"block-bg-overlay block-bg-blend-mode for-ie style-overlay_color-309354-bg\" style=\"opacity: 0.5;\"><\/div><div class=\"block-bg-overlay block-bg-blend-mode not-ie style-overlay_color-309354-bg\" style=\"mix-blend-mode:multiply;\"><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div><div class=\"row exa-top-padding exa-bottom-padding exa-h-padding full-width row-parent\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-bottom pos-center align_left column_parent col-lg-12 double-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-spec style-dark\"  ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-next-to-blend row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-left align_left column_child col-lg-9 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-spec style-dark\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"vc_custom_heading_wrap \"><div class=\"heading-text el-text\" ><h3 class=\"font-161747 custom fontspace-111509 font-weight-300 fontsize-167084-custom font-size-custom\" ><span>Adjudication<\/span><\/h3><\/div><div class=\"clear\"><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_custom_heading_wrap \"><div class=\"heading-text el-text\" ><h6 class=\"h2 text-color-xsdn-color\" ><span>THE RIGHT TO PROTECTION OF PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE<\/span><\/h6><\/div><div class=\"clear\"><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-3 tablet-hidden mobile-hidden single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><script id=\"script-row-unique-0\" data-row=\"script-row-unique-0\" type=\"text\/javascript\" class=\"vc_controls\">UNCODE.initRow(document.getElementById(\"row-unique-0\"));<\/script><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div data-parent=\"true\" class=\"vc_row has-bg need-focus style-color-xsdn-bg row-next-to-blend row-container\" id=\"row-unique-1\"><div class=\"row single-top-padding single-bottom-padding single-h-padding full-width row-parent\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_parent col-lg-12 double-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\"  ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell quad-block-padding style-color-xsdn-bg has-bg  unradius-std\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"uncode-accordion wpb_accordion wpb_content_element  sign-size-rg w-border\" data-collapsible=\"no\" data-target=\"\" data-active-tab=\"0\" >\n\t\t<div class=\"panel-group wpb_wrapper wpb_accordion_wrapper\" id=\"accordion_405063561\" data-no-toggle=\"1\">\n\n<div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_405063561\" href=\"#d21d5937-3bb0-215556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\"><span>Grand Chamber Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"d21d5937-3bb0-215556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (applications nos. 58170\/13, 62322\/14 and 24960\/15,\u00a0 judgment of 25 May 2021): Convention compliance of the British secret surveillance regime including bulk interception of communications and intelligence sharing.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-210077%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-173753 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>CENTRUM F\u00d6R R\u00c4TTVISA v. SWEDEN (application no. 35252\/08, judgment of 25 May 2021): Convention compliance of the Swedish secret surveillance regime including bulk interception of communications and intelligence sharing.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-210078%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-134209 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>PARADISO AND CAMPANELLI v. ITALY (application no. 25358\/12, judgment of 24 January 2017): prohibition of remunerated gestational surrogacy.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-170359%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-896617 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>PARRILLO v. ITALY (application no. 46470\/11, judgment of 27 August 2015): scientific research on human embryos and embryonic stem cells.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-157263%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-584032 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>KHOROSHENKO v. RUSSIA (application no. 41418\/04, judgment of 30 June 2015): prisoner\u2019s right to family visits, resocialisation as the primary purpose of imprisonment, the State obligation to provide for an individualised sentence plan.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-156006%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-644960 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>X. v. LATVIA (application no. 27853\/09, judgment of 26 November 2013): the conflict between obligations derived from European Convention on Human Rights and the obligations derived from the Hague Convention on international child abduction, the \u201cinchoate\u201d custody right of a non-registered father<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-138992%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-944209 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>S\u00d6DERMAN v. SWEDEN (application no. 5786\/08, judgment of 12 November 2013): the State obligation to criminalise child pornography, evolutive interpretation of penal law in accordance with the international law obligations of the State, right to domestic compensation based directly on a violation of the Convention, even in the absence of a violation of national law.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-128043%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-153351 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_405063561\" href=\"#6dad8f3c-7309-815556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\"><span>Section I Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"6dad8f3c-7309-815556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>S\u00d5RO v. ESTONIA (application no. 22588\/08, judgment of 3 September 2015): registration and public disclosure of former KGB employee as a lustration measure.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-156518%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-166999 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>MARINIS v. GREECE (application no. 3004\/10, judgment of 9 October 2014): the principle of prevalence of biological link in paternity and maternity actions.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-146776%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-984787 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_405063561\" href=\"#9346230d-a835-915556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\"><span>Section II Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"9346230d-a835-915556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>VASQUEZ v. SWITZERLAND (application no. 1785\/08, judgment of 26 November 2013): administrative expulsion of foreigner convicted of a sexual crime, although criminal court suspended expulsion, presumption of danger for public security based on decisions of dismissal of criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-138562%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-133715 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>KISSIWA KOFFI v. SWITZERLAND (application no. 38005\/07, judgment of 15 November 2012): expulsion of a foreign citizen convicted of a crime of drug trafficking.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-114461%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-883685 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>SHALA v. SWITZERLAND (application no. 52873\/09, judgment of 15 November 2012): expulsion of a foreign citizen convicted of several crimes of minor gravity.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-114465%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-714257 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>PONTES v. PORTUGAL (application no. 19554\/09, judgment of 10 April 2012): court order for a child to be placed for adoption due to drug addiction of parents.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-110269%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-197303 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>ASSUN\u00c7\u00c3O CHAVES v. PORTUGAL (application no. 61226\/08, judgment of 31 January 2012): court order for a child to be placed for adoption due to negligent behaviour of parents.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-108838%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-135999 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>VARAPNICKAITE-MAZYLIENE v. LITHUANIA (application no. 20376\/05, judgment of 17 January 2012): public disclosure of medical data.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-108680%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-365349 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>IYILIK v. TURKEY (application no. 2899\/05, judgment of 6 December 2011): paternity presumption of the mother\u2019s spouse.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-107729%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-129899 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_405063561\" href=\"#1555679162900-3-11555679505952d6a2-ca1e\"><span>Section III Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"1555679162900-3-11555679505952d6a2-ca1e\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>ZAKHARCHUK v. RUSSIA (application no. 2967\/12, judgment of 17 December 2019): expulsion of foreign, young citizen convicted of grievous bodily harm.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-199174%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-154040 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_405063561\" href=\"#1768653103440-4-8\"><span>Section IV Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"1768653103440-4-8\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>BABIARZ v. POLAND (application no. 1955\/10, judgment of 10 January2017): right to divorce, the protection of de facto f amily life created by one of the spouses with another third person, unpredictable case law)<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-170344%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-176491 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>RAMADAN v. MALTA (application no. 76136\/12, judgment of 21 June 2016): right to citizenship, prohibition of statelessness, revocation of citizenship due to annulment of false marriage.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-163820%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-129230 btn-round btn-icon-left\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>SZABO AND VISSY v. HUNGARY (application no. 37138\/14, judgment of 12 January 2016): mass surveillance for the purpose of national security.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-160020%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-149307 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>BARBULESCU v. ROMANIA (application no. no. 61496\/08, judgment of 12January 2016): employer\u2019s surveillance of the employee\u2019s Internet usage in the workplace within a private employment relation, termination of employment relation on the basis of the employee\u2019s intercepted Internet messages, horizontal effect of the European Convention.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-159906%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-184963 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\t\t<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><script id=\"script-row-unique-1\" data-row=\"script-row-unique-1\" type=\"text\/javascript\" class=\"vc_controls\">UNCODE.initRow(document.getElementById(\"row-unique-1\"));<\/script><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"AdjudicationTHE RIGHT TO PROTECTION OF PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE Grand Chamber Judgments BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED [...]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":166607,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-167002","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/167002","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=167002"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/167002\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":167612,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/167002\/revisions\/167612"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/166607"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}