Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 63608/00

She submitted that Convention case-law (James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98 and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, ECHR 1999-III) had considered Article 14 to be relevant in cases of differential treatment of persons with different interests in property.

Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 63608/00

It has concluded that the threshold at which the domestic courts could have found a particular act to be irrational has been placed so high that it effectively excludes any consideration by them of the question of whether the interference with the applicant's right answered a pressing social need or was proportionate to the aims pursued, principles which lie at the heart of the Court's analysis of complaints under Article 8 of the Convention (see Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, § 106, 28 January 2003, unreported, and the references at § 100 therein to Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, ECHR 1999-VI).

Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 63608/00

The applicant also referred to the Court's case-law to emphasise that private life considerations may arise once any permanent record comes into existence from the public domain (P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 57-60, ECHR 2001-IX).

Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 63608/00

The Government emphasised that their concession in Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, ECHR 2000-V, that the surveillance in that case amounted to an interference with that applicant's rights under Article 8 arose in a situation where there had been intrusive surveillance by means of a covert listening device installed in a private residence to record confidential conversations and therefore could not assist the applicant in the present case.