KLASS v. GERMANYDISSENTING OPINION BY MM. C.A. NØRGAARD,

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: May 21, 1992

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: May 21, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

DISSENTING OPINION BY MM. C.A. NØRGAARD,

S. TRECHSEL, H. DANELIUS AND B. MARXER

We have voted against the conclusions in paras. 108, 111 and 120

for the following reasons.

1. We consider that the treatment to which the first applicant was

exposed, although serious, did not have the severity necessary to bring

it under the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. On the other hand,

the treatment was in our view an interference with the first

applicant's right to respect for her private life for which there was

no justification under Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention.

Consequently, we find that Article 8 was violated in regard to the

first applicant.

2. As regards the second applicant, we do not consider that the fact

that she became a witness to the circumstances of her mother's arrest -

which was based upon a suspicion of her mother having driven a car

under the influence of alcohol with her then eight year old daughter

(the second applicant) as a passenger - constitutes an interference

with the second applicant's right to respect for her private life.

Consequently, there was, in respect of the second applicant, no

violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant