Jump to content

Mataki na 8 na Yarjejeniyar Turai kan 'Yancin Dan Adam

Daga Wikipedia, Insakulofidiya ta kyauta.

Mataki na 8 na Yarjejeniyar Turai kan 'Yancin Dan Adam 'Yancin Dan Adam ya ba da 'yancin mutunta "rayuwar sirri da ta iyali, gidansa da wasikunsa", bisa wasu ƙuntatawa waɗanda "suka dace da doka" da "wajibi a cikin al'ummar dimokuradiyya". Yarjejeniyar Turai game da Haƙƙin ɗan Adam (ECHR) (ainihin Yarjejeniyar Kare Haƙƙin Dan Adam da yancin ɗan adam) yarjejeniya ce ta ƙasa da ƙasa don kare haƙƙin ɗan adam da yancin ɗan adam a Turai.

Mataki na 8 – Haƙƙin mutunta rayuwar sirri da ta iyali

1. Kowane mutum na da hakkin a mutunta rayuwarsa ta sirri da ta iyali, gidansa da wasikunsa.

2. Ba za a yi wani tsoma baki daga wata hukuma ta al'umma ba, sai dai abin da ya dace da doka kuma ya zama wajibi a cikin al'ummar dimokuradiyya don kare lafiyar kasa, kare lafiyar jama'a ko kyautata tattalin arzikin kasa, don rigakafin tashe-tashen hankula ko aikata laifuka, don kare lafiya ko kyawawan dabi'u, ko don kare hakki da 'yancin wasu.

Ana ɗaukar Mataki na 8 a matsayin ɗaya daga cikin buɗaɗɗen tanadin taron.

Rayuwar iyali

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

A cikin X, Y, da Z v. UK, Kotun ta tuna cewa "ra'ayin 'rayuwar iyali' a cikin Mataki na ashirin da 8 ba a tsare shi kawai ga iyalai bisa ga aure ba kuma yana iya haɗawa da wasu dangantaka ta gaskiya. Lokacin da za a yanke shawarar ko za a iya cewa dangantaka ta kai 'rayuwar iyali', abubuwa da dama na iya zama masu dacewa, ciki har da ko ma'auratan suna rayuwa tare, ko tsawon lokacin da suke da dangantaka da juna ta hanyar dangantaka tsakanin juna da juna da kuma tsawon lokacin da juna ya kasance tare da juna. yana nufin.

A shari'ar Niemietz da Jamus kotu ta ba da ma'ana mai fa'ida ga ra'ayin 'gida' gami da ƙwararru/ wuraren kasuwanci kamar ofishin lauya.

Rayuwa ta sirri

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Don ƙarin fahimtar fahimtar fahimtar "rayuwa ta sirri" ya kamata a yi nazarin dokar shari'ar. A Niemietz v. Jamus, Kotun ta yi imanin cewa "ba ta la'akari da yiwuwar ko wajibi ne a gwada cikakkiyar ma'anar ra'ayi na 'rayuwa mai zaman kanta'. Duk da haka, zai zama maƙaraci don iyakance ra'ayi zuwa 'da'irar ciki' wanda mutum zai iya rayuwa na kansa kamar yadda ya zaɓa kuma don cire shi gaba ɗaya daga waje na waje wanda ba a haɗa shi a cikin wani nau'i na rayuwa ba don girmama wani da'irar mai zaman kansa. [1] kafa da haɓaka dangantaka da haɓaka dangantaka da sauran mutane."

Shari'ar shari'a

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Mataki na 8 a fili ya ba da ’yancin samun ‘yanci daga binciken da ba bisa ka’ida ba, amma Kotun ta ba da kariya ga “rayuwar sirri da ta iyali” cewa wannan labarin ya ba da fassarorin fassarorin, ɗaukar misali cewa haramcin yin luwadi na sirri na sirri ya saba wa wannan labarin. Ana iya kwatanta wannan da hukunce-hukuncen Kotun Koli ta Amurka, wacce kuma ta ɗauki ɗan taƙaitaccen fassarar 'yancin keɓewa. Bugu da ƙari kuma, Mataki na 8 a wasu lokuta ya ƙunshi ayyuka masu kyau: yayin da aka tsara haƙƙin ɗan adam na gargajiya a matsayin haramtawa ƙasa tsoma baki cikin haƙƙoƙin, don haka kada ta yi wani abu (misali kar a raba iyali a ƙarƙashin kariyar rayuwar iyali), ingantaccen jin daɗin irin waɗannan haƙƙoƙin na iya haɗawa da wajibci ga ƙasa ta zama mai aiki, da yin wani abu (misali don tilasta damar samun uban da aka saki ga ɗansa).

  • Golder v. United Kingdom (1975) 1 EHRR 524 - Wani fursuna ya nemi lauya saboda ya ce yana so ya kai karar mai gadi don ɓata suna. An hana samun dama. Wannan ya keta haƙƙin shari'a mai adalci (Mataki na 6 na ECHR) da kuma sirrin abokin ciniki.
  • Silver v. United Kingdom (1981) 3 EHRR 475 - Censorship na wasikar fursuna game da yanayin da ke kurkuku ya karya Mataki na 8.
  • R da Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 da Laskey, Jaggard da Brown v United Kingdom - Mataki na 8 an dauke shi ba don "[rashin inganci] dokar da ta hana tashin hankali wanda ke da lahani ga jiki da tunani" (musamman, hari da ke haifar da lahani na jiki a matsayin wani ɓangare na ayyukan jima'i na sadomasochistic) ta Majalisar Lords ta Burtaniya. Kotun Turai ta kuma gano cewa hukuncin bai karya Mataki na 8 ba.
  • Rotaru v. Romania [2000] ECHR 192 - Bayanan jama'a da aka tattara da tsari kuma adana su a cikin fayilolin da jihar ko wakilan ta ke riƙe sun fada cikin ikon rayuwar masu zaman kansu.
  • Pretty v. United Kingdom [2002] - Mataki na 8 ya kara don kare haƙƙin mutuwa. Kamar yadda yake tare da sashe na 9, 10 da 11, ana iya tsoma baki idan akwai ingantaccen hujja, kamar yadda yake a cikin Pretty.
  • Mosley v News Group Newspapers [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) - A cewar Eady J, an kara rashin amincewa don kare Art. 8 hakkoki.
  • S da Marper v United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 1581 - Tsayawa da bayanan DNA game da mutanen da aka kama amma ba a yanke musu hukunci ba an gudanar da su don karya Mataki na 8.
  • A, B da C v Ireland [2010] ECHR 2032 - Mataki na 8 ba ya ba da "dama ga zubar da ciki", amma Jamhuriyar Ireland ta karya shi ta hanyar sanya shi da wahala ga mace ta tabbatar da ko ta cancanci zubar da cikin gida.
  • Gillan da Quinton v United Kingdom [2010] ECHR 28 - Dakatar da ikon bincike da aka ba 'yan sanda a karkashin ss. 44-47 na Dokar Ta'addanci ta 2000 ba a iyakance su ba ko kuma a ƙarƙashin isasshen kariya ta shari'a game da cin zarafi. Saboda haka, Kotun ta sami ikon ba "bisa ga doka" ba, a keta Mataki na 8.[2]
  • Birmingham City Council v Clue (2010) EWCA Civ 460 29/4/2010 - Kalubale ga yanke shawara na ƙin samar da Ms Clue da iyalinta da muhimmiyar goyon baya har sai Hukumar Kula da iyakokin Burtaniya ta yanke shawarar neman izinin ba da izini ba tare da iyaka ba don kasancewa a Burtaniya. A cikin yanke shawara mai ban mamaki na Kotun daukaka kara, hukuncin ya fadada ikon samar da kula da al'umma ga iyalai da ke ƙarƙashin kulawar shige da fice waɗanda ke neman zama a Burtaniya bisa ga Mataki na 8 na ECHR.
  • Plantagenet Alliance v Ma'aikatar Shari'a da sauransu (2014) EWHC 1662 - Mataki na 8 bai ba da damar zuriyar zamani na Gidan Plantagenet da za a tuntube su a wurin sake binne Richard III ba.
  • Zakharov v. Russia (2015) - Kotun ta bincika dokokin sa ido na Rasha a cikin abstracto, ta gano tare da haɗin gwiwa cewa kasancewar rashin isasshen doka da aikace-aikacen ta a aikace da kansu sun zama keta haƙƙin mai nema a ƙarƙashin Mataki na 8. [3]
  • Aikace-aikacen Hukumar Kare Hakkin Dan Adam ta Arewacin Ireland [2015] NIQB 96 - Laifin zubar da ciki na Arewacin Ireland a lokuta na mummunar matsalar tayin, fyade ko lalata da aka bayyana ba daidai ba ne da Mataki na 8
  • Aycaguer v. Faransa (2017) - ECtHR ta gano amfani da samfurin halittu na Faransa don bayanan DNA na laifi ya zama keta Mataki na 8 a cikin batun Jean-Michel Aycaguers, dan kasar Faransa da aka yanke masa hukuncin aikata laifuka ba tare da tashin hankali ba. Abu mai mahimmanci, kotun ba ta sami duk aikin ya saba ba, amma ta yi iƙirarin cewa tsananin laifukan Aycaguer ba su zama yanayin da sha'awar jama'a ta fi haƙƙinsa na sirri a rayuwarsa ta sirri ba.[4]
  • H.W. v. Faransa [2025] - ECtHR ta yi la'akari da cewa wata mace ta Faransa ba ta da laifi saboda ta saki saboda rashin yin jima'i da mijinta. An soke hukunce-hukuncen kotun Faransa waɗanda suka yi la'akari da gazawarta don cika "aikin aure" (hakkin aure, watau jima'i) a matsayin dalilin kuskure.

Hakanan ana fassara ra'ayin rayuwa na sirri a cikin Mataki na 8 da ya haɗa da wasu ayyuka na kare muhalli.[5] [Tushen da aka buga da kansa?] [self-published source?]

Shari'o'in da suka shafi haƙƙin LGBTQ

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Abubuwan da ke biyowa suna magana game da zartar da Mataki na 8 ga batutuwan da suka shafi mutanen LGBTQ ciki har da amincewa da auren jinsi, dokokin da suka haramta luwadi, da samun damar yin amfani da sabis na kiwon lafiya ga masu canza jinsi.

  • Modinos v. Cyprus (1993) - Hukuncin da ya soke Sashe na 171 na Dokar Laifuka ta Cyprus wanda aka haramta ayyukan ɗan luwaɗi na maza, yana gano cewa an karya doka a ƙarƙashin Mataki na 8 na haƙƙin mai nema na girmama rayuwar sirri.
  • Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (1999) 29 EHRR 493 - Binciken da aka yi da kuma fitar da ma'aikata daga Royal Navy bisa ga jima'i ya kasance keta haƙƙin rayuwa ta sirri a ƙarƙashin Mataki na 8.
  • Goodwin v United Kingdom (2002) - Ya yanke hukuncin cewa ba a kare haƙƙin mace mai canza launin fata ga rayuwa ta sirri ba. Hukuncin ya kasance wani abu ne a gabatar da Dokar Gender Recognition Act 2004.
  • Van Kück v. Jamus [2003] ECHR 285 - Rashin isasshen damar yin sauraro mai kyau a cikin shari'ar da ta shafi biyan kuɗi daga mai ba da inshora na likita mai zaman kansa don farashin maganin maye gurbin hormone da tiyata na sake fasalin jinsi ta wata mace mai jima'i, inda aka sanya nauyin da ba daidai ba don tabbatar da bukatar likita na magani, ya kasance keta doka a ƙarƙashin Mataki na 8 da Mataki na 6 sakin layi na 1.[6]
  • Oliari da Sauran v Italiya (2015) - Italiya ta keta Mataki na 8 ta hanyar rashin ba da izinin doka ga ma'aurata masu jinsi ɗaya.
  • R (Christie Elan-Cane) v Sakataren Gwamnati na Ma'aikatar Cikin Gida [2020] EWCA Civ 363 - Kotunan Burtaniya sun gudanar da cewa batutuwan jinsi sun shiga Mataki na 8 kamar yadda jinsi ya kasance tsakiya ga rayuwar mutum.

Rashin bin yarjejeniyar ta hanyar sa ido kan jama'a

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Sa ido kan jama'a, irin na shirye-shiryen da Edward Snowden ya bayyana a duniya, ana zarginsa da keta ka'idoji na 8 na Yarjejeniyar 'Yancin Dan Adam ta Turai.[7][8][9][10][11]

Wani rahoto na 2014 ga Babban taron Majalisar Dinkin Duniya da babban jami'in Majalisar Dinkin Duniya kan yaki da ta'addanci da hakkin dan adam ya yi Allah wadai da sa ido kan wayar da kan jama'a a matsayin bayyanannen keta haƙƙin sirrin sirri da aka ba da garantin yarjejeniya da yarjejeniyoyin da yawa kuma ya bambanta tsakanin "sa idanu da aka yi niyya" - wanda "ya dogara da wanzuwar tuhume-tuhumen da aka yi niyya na mutum ko ƙungiyoyin da aka yi niyya tare da matakan Intanet" shiga na iya [] samun damar yin amfani da abun cikin wayar tarho da imel na adadin masu amfani mara iyaka yadda ya kamata da kuma kula da bayyani na ayyukan Intanet da ke da alaƙa da wasu gidajen yanar gizo". Tsangwama kawai na zirga-zirga da bayanan wurin da aka yi niyya don magance manyan laifuka, gami da ta'addanci, ya dace, bisa ga shawarar da Kotun Turai ta yanke.[12]

  • Mataki na 10 na Yarjejeniyar Turai kan 'Yancin Dan Adam
  • Entick da Carrington
  • Shari'ar Semayne
  1. "Guide Article 8" (PDF). Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  2. "Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom". Retrieved 9 February 2011.
  3. "HUDOC Press Release: Arbitrary and abusive secret surveillance of mobile telephone communications in Russia". hudoc.echr.coe.int. 2015-12-04. Retrieved 2016-04-15.
  4. "European Court to France: DNA Database Violates Fundamental Rights". HL Chronicle of Data Protection (in Turanci). 2017-09-08. Archived from the original on 2021-04-15. Retrieved 2021-03-19.
  5. Buyse, Antoine (2009-04-08). "Nuisance From Outside the Prison". ECHR Blog. Retrieved 2013-09-01.
  6. "Courts' refusal to order reimbursement of top-up costs of transsexual's gender re-assignment treatment". Archived from the original on 7 August 2011. Retrieved 9 January 2010.
  7. Harding, Luke (26 January 2015). "Mass surveillance is fundamental threat to human rights, says European report". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 January 2017.
  8. Greenwald, Glenn (15 October 2014). "UN Report Finds Mass Surveillance Violates International Treaties and Privacy Rights". The Intercept. Retrieved 2 January 2017.
  9. McCarthy, Kieren. "European human rights court rules mass surveillance illegal". The Register.
  10. "UN Says Mass Surveillance Violates Human Rights". Techdirt. 17 October 2014. Retrieved 2 January 2017.
  11. "Does government spying violate human rights law? - Right Now". Right Now. 11 March 2014. Retrieved 2 January 2017.
  12. Asthana, Anushka (25 December 2016). "Revealed: British councils used Ripa to secretly spy on public". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 January 2017.

Haɗin waje

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Ƙarin karantawa

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]