Abstract
The pandemic of COVID-19 has put many governments to a test for which we have no precedent. In fighting to protect public health and economics, authorities worldwide have implemented various measures with one common denominator—significant limitations to a wide specter of human rights. While many governments have opted for various forms of high-tech surveillance and intrusions on the privacy of citizens, the governments of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Montenegro have implemented more orthodox and rudimental measures. Various levels of governments in the two countries have been publishing lists of citizens who have been ordered to self-isolation, with some of them publishing the data of all of these individuals and some of them publishing the data of only those individuals who have breached self-isolation. While the purpose of these measures is unclear, and thus their benefits questionable, all the measures represent undoubtedly a significant interference with the right to private life.
With both Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Montenegro being Member States of the Council of Europe and States Parties to the European Convention of Human Rights, and neither of them deciding to derogate from their obligations under this Convention, an important question arises: Would the measures undertaken by the authorities pass the standards established by the European Court of Human Rights? This paper attempts to provide answers by analyzing measures through the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Regulatory responses of the jurisdictions worldwide is divergent. See: Eidenmüller (2020) The Race to Fight COVID-19: On the Desirability of Regulatory Competition. Oxford Law Faculty. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2020/03/race-fight-covid-19-desirability-regulatory-competition?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook0.
- 2.
Kharpal (2020).
- 3.
However, since the EU law provides a higher level of protection of privacy and data protection than ECHR, the measures would also be incompatible with the EU law principles. As it will be mentioned in the paper, rules of the EU law would explicitly bar such measures had they been undertaken by a member state of the EU.
- 4.
This paper will not address the state of emergency per se. It that respect, Article 15 of the ECHR stipulates: “In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.” Unlike some Member States of the Council of Europe who notified derogation from the ECHR, which is a duty required by Article 15 § 3 of the ECHR, B&H and MN have omitted to do so in the time of publishing of the lists and there are no announcements of such intent in the future.
- 5.
While in MN only the central government publishes these lists, the situation differs in B&H, where in the absence of such a list being published by the state authorities, several lower tiers of government have published lists of citizens independently. These lists have in some cases been published simultaneously by two different tiers of government concerning the citizens from the same territory (e.g. list of Municipality of Trebinje, and lists of the Republika Srpska, the Entity in which this Municipality is situated).
- 6.
List of persons who were subject to a self-isolation measure. 2020. Official web-site of the Government of the Republic of Montenegro http://www.gov.me/naslovna/samoizolacija. Accessed 19 April 2020.
- 7.
Personal Data Protection Act (Zakon o zaštiti podataka o ličnosti) Official Gazette of Montenegro 79/08 and 70/09, Available at: http://www.azlp.me/docs/zajednicka/zakoni/personaldataprotectionlaweng.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2020
- 8.
Public announcement regarding processing personal data regarding activities in relation to corona virus pandemics. 2020. Official website of the B&H Agency http://www.azlp.ba/saopstenja/?id=2914. Accessed 19 April 2020.
- 9.
The list in Republika Srpska.
- 10.
Personal Data Protection Act (Zakon o o zaštiti ličnih podataka) (‘Official Gazette of BIH’, nos. 49/06, 76/11 and 89/11), available at: http://azlp.ba/propisi/Default.aspx?id=5&langTag=en-US&template_id=149&pageIndex=1. Accessed 8 July 2020.
- 11.
Public announcement regarding illegality of general and proactive publication of personal data of persons in breach of mandatory orders, 2020. Official website of the B&H Agency http://www.azlp.ba/saopstenja/?id=2936. Accessed 19 April 2020.
- 12.
Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data No. 108 Art. 2 a).
- 13.
Amann v. Switzerland, 2000 – II, Eur. Ct. H.R, 269; Also, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland, 2017, 133–138.
- 14.
See e.g. S. and Marper v. UK, 2008 – V, Eur. Ct. H.R, 213.
- 15.
Recommendation CM/Rec(2019) 2 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the protection of health-related data. 2019. Official website of Council of Europe https://search.coe.int/cm/pages/result_details.aspx?objectid=090000168093b26e. Accessed 19 April 2020.
- 16.
Z v Finland, App. No. 22009/93, 25 Eur. H.R. Rep. 371, 406 (1997).
- 17.
Ibid.
- 18.
Mockutė v. Lithuania, App no. 66490/09, 101–106 (2018).
- 19.
Delfi AS v. Estonia 2015 – II, Eur. Ct. H.R, 373.
- 20.
Public announcement on illegality of general and proactive publishing of persons who do not comply with measures related to the Corona virus pandemic (Saopštenje za javnost o nezakonitosti generalnog i proaktivnog objavljivanja ličnih podataka lica koja ne postupaju u skladu sa mjerama zabrane u vezi pandemije virusa korona), 2020. Official website of the B&H Agency http://www.azlp.ba/saopstenja/?id=2936, Accessed 8 July 2020.
- 21.
Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt V. Hungary, (Application no. 201/17), 2020, para. 94, available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22Magyar%20K%C3%A9tfark%C3%BA%20Kutya%20P%C3%A1rt%20V.%20Hungary%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-200657%22]}.
- 22.
In general, ECtHR rarely finds a lack of legitimate aim. See: P. and S. v. Poland, 2012 – II, Eur. Ct. H.R., 133; L.H. v. Latvia, 2014 – I, Eur. Ct. H.R., 50–55.
- 23.
Although the Sunday Times case is related to article 10, the same test has been recognized in relation to article 8, see more: Schabas (2015), p. 406.
- 24.
The Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom, App. No. 6538/74, 2 Eur. H.R. Rep. 245, 277 (1979). The test is also employed in cases concerning Article 8. See e.g. Üner v. the Netherlands, 2006 – XII, Eur. Ct. H.R, 145 and Maslov v Austria, 2008 – III, Eur. Ct. H.R, 322.
- 25.
- 26.
Gerards (2013), p. 467.
- 27.
Jizeng (2016), p. 51.
- 28.
Green (2006), p. 217.
- 29.
This approach has been recognized as a fairly recent development in the jurisprudence of the ECHR, see more: Brems and Lavrysen (2015), pp. 139–168.
- 30.
Avilkina and others v. Russia (Application no. 1585/09), 2013 para. 46, available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-120071%22]}, Z v Finland, App. No. 22009/93, 25 Eur. H.R. Rep. 371, 407 (1997).
- 31.
Kiyutin v. Russia, 2011-II, Eur. Ct. H.R, 49.
- 32.
Ibid.
- 33.
The application is available at: https://crnagorakorona.com/home.
- 34.
M.N. and Others v. San Marino, 2012 – I, Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 81–85.
- 35.
Although the accordance of this measure with the ECHR would still be questionable as it can also lead to physical abuse or harassment.
- 36.
Open data portal: Covid-19 self-isolation. 2020. Official website of the Government of Serbia. https://data.gov.rs/sr/datasets/covid-19 samoizolatsija/?fbclid=IwAR0eHQew75AhOc2OsMswJ3gBjycnY4caENOycQq8_Q_u7Rg-InFcjqz7JhY. Accessed 19 April 2020.
- 37.
B.B (2020), available at: http://www.rtcg.me/koronavirus/crnagora/274723/uz-pomoc-mobilne-aplikacije-prijavite-simptome.html Accessed 8 July 2020.
- 38.
Enhorn v Sweden, Application No. 56529/00.
- 39.
Also, this case concerned a measure aimed at protecting public health or safety. ECtHR addressed the availability of less intrusive measures in Article 8 case in Surikov v. Ukraine, (Application no. 42788/06), 2017, para. 92, available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-170462%22]} affirming the importance of state’s deliberation of that issue.
- 40.
Government of Montenegro (Vlada Crne Gore) (@VladaCG) Twitter (March 21, 2020, 7:38 PM). https://twitter.com/VladaCG/status/1241433943657844742.
- 41.
Eskens et al. (2007), p. 263.
- 42.
Leghe and Weismann (2014), pp. 305–306.
- 43.
Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, (Application no. 37374/05), 2009, para. 26, available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22Tarsasag%20a%20Szabadsagjogokert%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-92171%22]}.
- 44.
Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung Eines Wirtschaftlich Gesunden Land- und ForstWirtschaftlichen Grundbesitzes v. Austria, (Application no. 39534/07), 2013, para. 36, available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22osterreichische%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-139084%22]}.
- 45.
Supra note 41, p. 264.
- 46.
See Supra notes 33 and 34.
- 47.
See Supra note 35.
References
Amann v. Switzerland, 2000 – II, Eur. Ct. H.R
Avilkina and others v. Russia (Application no. 1585/09), 2013 para. 46., available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-120071%22]}, Z v Finland, App. No. 22009/93, 25 Eur. H.R. Rep. 371 (1997)
B.B (2020) Uz pomoć mobilne aplikacije prijavite simptome. RTCG http://www.rtcg.me/koronavirus/crnagora/274723/uz-pomoc-mobilne-aplikacije-prijavite-simptome.html
Brems E, Lavrysen L (2015) Don’t use a sledgehammer to crack a nut: less restrictive means in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Hum Rights Law Rev: 1–30
Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data No. 108
Delfi AS v. Estonia 2015 – II, Eur. Ct. H.R
Eidenmüller H (2020) The race to fight COVID-19: on the desirability of regulatory competition. Oxford Law Faculty. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2020/03/race-fight-covid-19-desirability-regulatory-competition?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
Eskens S, Helberger N, Moeller J (2007) Challenged by news personalization: five perspectives on the right to receive information. J Media Law 9(2):259–284
Fordhman M, de la Mare T (2001) Identifying the principles of proportionality. In: Jeffrey J, Jonathan C (eds) Understanding human rights principles. Hart, p 53
Gerards J (2013) How to improve the necessity test of the European Court of Human Rights. Int J Const Law 11:466–490
Government of Montenegro (2020). (Vlada Crne Gore) (@VladaCG) Twitter https://twitter.com/VladaCG/status/1241433943657844742
Green S (2006) The European Convention on Human Rights: achievements, problems and prospects. Cambridge University Press
Jizeng F (2016) Rethinking the method and function of proportionality test in the European Court of Human Rights. J Hum Rights 16(1):46–87
Kharpal A (2020) Use of surveillance to fight coronavirus raises concerns about government power after pandemic ends. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/coronavirus-surveillance-used-by-governments-to-fight-pandemic-privacy-concerns.html
Kiyutin v. Russia, 2011-II, Eur. Ct. H.R
Law On The Protection Of Personal Data (‘Official Gazette of BIH’, nos. 49/06, 76/11 and 89/11)., available at: http://azlp.ba/propisi/Default.aspx?id=5&langTag=en-US&template_id=149&pageIndex=1
Leghe F, Weismann P (2014) The european court of human rights and access to information. Int Hum Rights Law Rev 3
M.N. and Others v. San Marino, 2012 – I, Eur. Ct. H.R
Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt V. Hungary, (Application no. 201/17), 2020, para. 94, available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22Magyar%20K%C3%A9tfark%C3%BA%20Kutya%20P%C3%A1rt%20V.%20Hungary%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-200657%22]}
Maslov v Austria, 2008 – III, Eur. Ct. H.R
Mockutė v. Lithuania, App no. 66490/09, 101 – 106 (2018)
Open data portal: Covid-19 self-isolation. 2020. Official website of the Government of Serbia
Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung Eines Wirtschaftlich Gesunden Land- und ForstWirtschaftlichen Grundbesitzes v. Austria, (Application no. 39534/07), 2013., available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22osterreichische%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-139084%22]}
Personal Data Protection Law (Official Gazette of Montenegro 79/08 and 70/09)., Available at: http://www.azlp.me/docs/zajednicka/zakoni/personaldataprotectionlaweng.pdf
Public announcement on illegality of general and proactive publishing of persons who do not comply with measures related to the Corona virus pandemic (Saopštenje za javnost o nezakonitosti generalnog i proaktivnog objavljivanja ličnih podataka lica koja ne postupaju u skladu sa mjerama zabrane u vezi pandemije virusa korona) 2020, http://www.azlp.ba/saopstenja/?id=2936
Public announcement regarding illegality of general and proactive publication of personal data of persons in breach of mandatory orders. 2020. Official website of the B&H Agency http://www.azlp.ba/saopstenja/?id=2936
Public announcement regarding processing personal data regarding activities in relation to corona virus pandemics. 2020. Official website of the B&H Agency http://www.azlp.ba/saopstenja/?id=2914
Recommendation CM/Rec(2019) 2 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the protection of health-related data. 2019. Official website of Council of Europe
S. and Marper v. UK, 2008 – V, Eur. Ct. H.R
Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland, 2017
Schabas W (2015) The european convention on human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Surikov v. Ukraine, (Application no. 42788/06), 2017, para. 92, available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-170462%22]}
Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, (Application no. 37374/05), 2009., available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22Tarsasag%20a%20Szabadsagjogokert%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-92171%22]}
Üner v. the Netherlands, 2006 – XII, Eur. Ct. H.R
Z v Finland, App. No. 22009/93, 25 Eur. H.R. Rep. 371 (1997)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Muftić, N., Herenda, T. (2021). Sacrificing Privacy in the Fight Against Pandemics: How Far Is Too Far? Examples from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro. In: Meškić, Z., Kunda, I., Popović, D.V., Omerović, E. (eds) Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law 2020. Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law, vol 2020. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/16247_2020_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/16247_2020_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-65294-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-65295-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)