Information Note on the Court’s case-law 51

March 2003

Martin v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 63608/00

Decision 27.3.2003 [Section III]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Video surveillance of applicant’s home following complaints of anti-social behaviour: admissible

The applicant lives in a house rented from the local authority. The terms of her lease prohibit harassment or nuisance of neighbours. In 1998, the Council received a complaint about the behaviour of the applicant and her children from the owners of the house next door. In July 1999, the Council sought to evict the applicant following a complaint of violent assault against her neighbour. The applicant gave an undertaking not to harass or cause nuisance to anybody in her road. Between November 1999 and April 2000, the neighbours complained on several occasions of acts of harassment and nuisance, prompting a warning to the applicant from the local authority. On 18 April, the local authority installed a hidden video camera on the wall of the neighbours’ house, opposite the applicant’s front door. As the entrance to her house was on the side, the area within the camera’s range was not the same as that which could be observed from the street. The applicant became aware of the camera the following month and was shown video recordings. The local authority sought to repossess the house on the basis that she had broken an obligation of her tenancy an d/or was causing a nuisance. In support of its claim, the local authority relied on events that had occurred since the camera was installed. The applicant generally denied the allegations. She gave an undertaking in court not to assault or cause a nuisance to her neighbours or to allow her children or visitors to do so. She has remained in her home since. In September 2000, the local authority informed the applicant that no further surveillance would be carried out and that the existing recordings had been destroyed. The applicant indicates that the experience of surveillance was very distressing and greatly affected her normal private and family life.

Admissible under Article 8.

Inadmissible under Article 14: The applicant has not established that her neigh bours (freeholders) were in an analogous position to her (leaseholder) in relation to the local authority: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes