Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 22 [Respect for Privacy]

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

  • 3406 Accesses

Abstract

At the first stage of negotiations, current Article 22 was not a stand-alone provision but it was merged into the article on the respect for home and the family. During negotiations, delegations agreed to split this article into two separate provisions, following the model of other human rights treaties, and to use the language of Article 17 of the ICCPR for the norm on the right to privacy.

Under para. 1 of Article 22 persons with disabilities are protected against arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, correspondence or other types of communications as well as against unlawful attacks on their honour and reputation, regardless of where they reside or are temporarily housed. In addition, para. 2 protects the confidentiality of all information relating to the personal sphere, healthcare, and rehabilitation of disabled people on an equal basis with other individuals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/wgcontrib-chair1.htm. Accessed April 5, 2015.

  2. 2.

    See Draft Article 14 – Respect for Privacy, the Home and the Family, A/AC.265/2004/WG/1, Annex I. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahcwgreporta14.htm. Accessed April 5, 2015. Also, the EU Proposal for the text of an International Convention on the Full and Equal Enjoyment of all Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Persons with Disabilities of 2004 contained the right to privacy in Article 7, para. (e), which read as follows: “[States Parties] take measures to ensure that persons with disabilities are not subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family , home or correspondence.”

  3. 3.

    See Article 23 [Respect for Home and the Family] in this Commentary.

  4. 4.

    http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/wgsuma14.htm. Accessed April 5, 2015.

  5. 5.

    See the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee, A/AC.265/2005/2, February 23, 2005, pp. 19–24. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc5reporte.htm. Accessed April 5, 2015.

  6. 6.

    This paragraph was deleted from Article 21 (current Article 25 “Health”), http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahcchairletter7oct.htm. Accessed April 5, 2015. See Schulze (2009), p. 84.

  7. 7.

    http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc7sum20jan.htm. Accessed April 5, 2015.

  8. 8.

    See Lester and Pannick (2004), para. 4.82; Rengel (2013).

  9. 9.

    See CCPR, General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (Right to privacy), HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 21 (1994), para. 1.

  10. 10.

    See, infra, para. 3.

  11. 11.

    The EU emphasized that the principle of protecting persons with disabilities from arbitrary or unlawful intrusions of privacy applies in all living arrangements. It therefore suggested to replace the words “including those living in institutions” with “regardless of their place of residence.” It is also relevant Article 19 of the CRPD, which protects the right of persons with disabilities to choose their place of residence without being obliged to live in a particular living arrangement; see Article 19 [Living Independently and Being Included in the Community] in this Commentary.

  12. 12.

    In addition, the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry suggested adding in para. 1 the adjective “discriminatory,” along with “arbitrary or unlawful,” observing that “particularly in institutions, interference with privacy may be rationalized based on management considerations and thus not considered arbitrary or unlawful, but it is discriminatory because people not relegated to living in institutions are not subjected to such interference. When the particular form of institutionalization disproportionately affects people with disabilities, such practices may also constitute discrimination based on disability.” http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/wgdca14.htm. On institutionalization, see also the position of the International Disability Caucus available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahcstata22fiscomments.htm. Accessed April 5, 2015.

  13. 13.

    Article 17 of the ICCPR reads as follows: “1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family , home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” On the right to privacy in the ICCPR and the jurisprudence of the CCPR on Article 17, see, among others, Joseph and Castan (2013).

  14. 14.

    See also Article 18 of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam; Article 4, para. 3, of the African Union’s Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa; and Article 5 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.

  15. 15.

    See Rehman (2010), pp. 106 et seqq.

  16. 16.

    See Roagna (2012), p. 12.

  17. 17.

    The ECommHR, which was abolished in 1998 with the entry into force of the Additional Protocol No. 11, observed that “For numerous Anglo-Saxon and French authors, the right to respect ‘private life’ is the right to privacy , the right to live, as far as one wishes, protected from publicity. In the opinion of the Commission, however, the right to respect for private life does not end there. It comprises also, to a certain degree, the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings, especially in the emotional field for the development and fulfilment of one’s own personality”; see X v. Iceland, Application No. 6825/74, decision of the ECommHR of May 18, 1976, 5 DR 86. On the right to privacy within the ECHR, see, among others, Coussirat-Coustere (1999); Russo (1999); Moreham (2008); Sottiaux (2008), pp. 265–322.

  18. 18.

    See ECtHR, X and Y v. the Netherlands, Application No. 8978/80, judgment of March 26, 1985, Series A No. 91, p. 11, para. 22.

  19. 19.

    See ECtHR, Mikulić v. Croatia, Application No. 8978/80, judgment of February 7, 2002, ECHR 2002-I, para. 53.

  20. 20.

    See, among others, ECtHR, B. v. France, Application No. 13343/87, judgment of March 25, 1992, Series A No. 232-C, pp. 53–54, para. 63; ECtHR, Burghartz v. Switzerland, Application No. 16213/90, judgment of February 22, 1994, Series A No. 280-B, p. 28, para. 24; ECtHR, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 7525/76, judgment of October 22, 1981, Series A No. 45, pp. 18–19, para. 41.

  21. 21.

    See ECtHR, Friedl v. Austria, Application No. 15225/89, judgment of January 31, 1995, Series A No. 305-B, opinion of the Commission, p. 20, para. 45. On the case law concerning Article 8 of the ECHR see Roagna (2012); Harris et al. (2014). On the basis of the Court’s jurisprudence, Moreham has identified five subcategories of private life covered by Article 8: (1) freedom from interference with physical and psychological integrity, (2) freedom from unwanted access to and collection of information, (3) freedom from serious environmental pollution, (4) right to be free to develop one’s identity, and (5) right to live one’s life in the manner of one’s choosing. See Moreham (2008).

  22. 22.

    ECtHR, Pretty v. United Kingdom, Application No. 2346/02, judgment of April 29, 2002, ECHR 2002-III, paras. 61, 63, and 65.

  23. 23.

    Ibid. Para. 63. Emphasis added.

  24. 24.

    In the French text of Article 22, the term is “vie privée.”

  25. 25.

    See CCPR, General Comment No. 16, cit., para. 10.

  26. 26.

    See CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations on the initial report of Denmark, CRPD/C/DNK/CO/1, October 30, 2014, para. 51.

  27. 27.

    See Article 23 [Respect for Home and the Family] in this Commentary.

  28. 28.

    See, inter alia, ECtHR, Société Colas Est and Others v. France, Application No. 37971/97, judgment of April 16, 2002, ECHR 2002-III, paras. 40-42; ECtHR, Niemietz v. Germany, Application No. 13710/88, judgment of December 16, 1992, Series A no. 251-B, paras. 29–30.

  29. 29.

    See ECtHR, Giacomelli v. Italy, Application No. 59909/00, judgment of November 2, 2006, 45 EHRR 871, para. 76. See Roagna (2012), pp. 73 et seqq.

  30. 30.

    See CCPR, General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (Right to privacy), HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 21 (1994), para. 5.

  31. 31.

    During the drafting process, it was suggested to update the term “correspondence” used in Article 17 of the ICCPR. Delegations agreed to use the phrase “correspondence or other types of communication” contained in the ICMW.

  32. 32.

    On the informational privacy, see Baker (2004).

  33. 33.

    See ECtHR, Sciacca v. Italy, Application No. 50774/99, judgment of January 11, 2005, ECHR 2005-I, para. 29.

  34. 34.

    See CCPR, General Comment No. 16, cit., para. 8.

  35. 35.

    On these aspects, see the Report of the OHCHR, The right to privacy in the digital age, A/HRC/27/37.

  36. 36.

    Novak suggested that “honour” refers to one’s subjective opinion of him/herself (one’s esteem), whereas “reputation” refers to one’s appraisal by others; see Joseph and Castan (2013), p. 551.

  37. 37.

    See CCPR, General Comment No. 16, cit., para. 11.

  38. 38.

    ECtHR, Factsheet—Protection of reputation, Unité de la press, January 2016.

  39. 39.

    Article 8, para 2, of the ECHR states: “There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health of morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” On the derogation clause, see Roagna (2012), pp. 34 et seqq.

  40. 40.

    See CCPR, General Comment No. 16, cit., para. 3.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., para. 4.

  42. 42.

    Data subject is the person whose personal data are collected, held, or processed.

  43. 43.

    CRPD Committee, General comment No. 1 (2014), Article 12: Equal recognition before the law, CRPD/C/GC/1, para. 47.

  44. 44.

    See European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Council of Europe (2014), p. 15.

  45. 45.

    Proposals for a universal convention on data protection have been submitted to UN but to date any agreement has been not adopted. The UNGA with Resolution 45/95 of December 14, 1990 adopted the “Guidelines on the use of computerized personal files” which were based on the principles set out in the Convention No. 108.

  46. 46.

    See Article 1, the text of the Convention and the amendments adopted in 1999 are available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/108.htm. Accessed April 6, 2015.

  47. 47.

    In 2001, the Convention was supplemented by an Additional Protocol regarding Supervisory Authorities and Transborder Data Flows. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/181.htm. Accessed April 8, 2015. Within the CoE, several soft law acts have been adopted, and many initiatives have been taken to protect personal data; see European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Council of Europe (2014).

  48. 48.

    Article 16, para. 1, of the TFEU states that everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.

  49. 49.

    Under Article 6, para. 1, of the TEU, the EUCFR has the same legal value as the treaties.

  50. 50.

    http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/95-46-ce/dir1995-46_part1_en.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2015. See Fromholz (2000).

  51. 51.

    The Regulation requires EU institutions and bodies to appoint at least one person as a data protection officer, to keep a register of processing operations and to notify systems with specific risks to the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS). This latter has issued guidelines for the processing by EU institutions and bodies of health data in the workplace. In addition, the EDPS has handled complaints raised by employees with disabilities in relation to the processing of their personal data and given opinions on issues relating to the processing of information on people with disabilities in the institutions. See European Commission (2014), paras. 113–117.

  52. 52.

    See CJEU, Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland v. Minister for Communication et al, and Kaertner Landesregierung, judgment of April 8, 2014.

  53. 53.

    The new Regulation is intended to replace Directive 95/46/EC, see COM(2012) 11 final. The European Commission considered the Regulation the most appropriate legal instrument to define the framework for the protection of personal data in the Union because, in accordance with Article 288 of the TFEU, it is directly applicable in all Member States.

  54. 54.

    See the Proposal for a directive on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data, COM(2012) 10 final.

  55. 55.

    http://www.algoodbody.com/EU_General_Data_Protection_Regulation. These acts must receive formal adoption from the European Parliament and Council, and then the texts will be published in the Official Journal of the EU in all official languages. The new rules will become applicable 2 years thereafter. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/reform/index_en.htm. Accessed February 20, 2016.

  56. 56.

    Concerning the positive obligations under Article 8 of the ECHR, see, among others, ECtHR, Airey v. Ireland, Application No. 6289/73, judgment of October 9, 1979, Series A No. 32, para. 32; ECtHR, I. v. Finland, Application No. 20511/03, judgment of July 17, [2008] ECHR 623, para. 36; ECtHR, K.U. v. Finland, Application No. 2872/02, judgment of December 2, 2008, [2009] 48 EHRR 1237, paras. 42–43. On these obligations, see Moreham (2008); Roagna (2012), pp. 60 et seqq.; Wright and de Hert (2012).

  57. 57.

    On the margin of appreciation within Article 8 of the ECHR, see Rainey et al. (2014), pp. 365 et seqq.

  58. 58.

    On the obligations of States Parties under Article 17 of the ICCPR, see CCPR, General Comment No. 16, cit., para. 11.

  59. 59.

    In the Concluding Observations concerning the initial report of Ukraine, the CRPD Committee recommended the State Party to provide boys and girls with disabilities in institutions with adequate standards of living, including access to privacy, which is lacking (see CRPD/C/UKR/CO/1, October 2, 2015, para. 14).

  60. 60.

    See CCPR, General Comment No. 16, cit., para. 2.

  61. 61.

    ECtHR, Z v. Finland, Application No. 22009/93, judgment of February 25, 1997, [1997] ECHR 10, para. 95.

Table of Cases

  • CJEU 08.04.2014, Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland v Minister for Communication et al, and Kaertner Landesregierung, ECR I-238

    Google Scholar 

  • ECommHR 18.05.1976, Application No. 6825/74, X v Iceland, 5 DR 86

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 09.10.1979, Application No. 6289/73, Airey v Ireland, Series A No. 32

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 22.10.1981, Application No. 7525/76, Dudgeon v the United Kingdom, Series A No. 45

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 26.03.1985, Application No. 8978/80, X and Y v the Netherlands, Series A No. 91

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 25.03.1992, Application No. 13343/87, B v France, Series A No. 232-C, pp 53-54

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 16.12.1992, Application No. 13710/88, Niemietz v Germany, Series A No. 251-B

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 22.02.1994, Application No. 16213/90, Burghartz v Switzerland, Series A No. 280-B, p 28

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 31.01.1995, Application No. 15225/89, Friedl v Austria, Series A No. 305-B

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 25.02.1997, Application No. 22009/93, Z v Finland, [1997] ECHR 10, 25 EHRR 12

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 07.02.2002, Application No. 53176/99, Mikulić v Croatia, ECHR 2002-I

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 16.04.2002, Application No. 37971/97, Société Colas Est and Others v France, ECHR 2002-III

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 29.04.2002, Application No. 2346/02, Pretty v United Kingdom, ECHR 2002-III

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 11.01.2005, Application No. 50774/99, Sciacca v Italy, ECHR 2005-I

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 02.11.2006, Application No. 59909/00, Giacomelli v Italy, ECHR 2006-XII, 45 EHRR 871

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 17.07.2008, Application No. 20511/03, I v Finland, [2008] ECHR 623, 48 EHRR 31

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 02.12.2008, Application No. 2872/02, K U v Finland, [2009] 48 EHRR 1237

    Google Scholar 

References

  • Baker CE (2004) Autonomy and informational privacy, or gossip: the central meaning of the first amendment. Soc Philos Policy 21(2):215, 268

    Google Scholar 

  • Coussirat-Coustere V (1999) Article 8 § 2. In: Pettiti L-E, Decaux E, Imbert PH (sous la direction de) La Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Commentaire article par article. Economica, Paris, pp 323–351

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014) Report on the implementation of the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD) by the European Union. SWD(2014) 182 final. Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Council of Europe (2014) Handbook on European data protection law. Publications Office of the European Union, Belgium. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Handbook_data_protection_ENG.pdf. Accessed 6 Apr 2015

  • Fromholz JM (2000) The European Union data privacy directive. Berkeley Technol Law J 15(1):461–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris DJ, O’Boyle M, Bates EB, Buckley CM (2014) Law of the European Convention on human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, pp 522–591

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph S, Castan M (2013) The International Covenant on civil and political rights: cases, materials and commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester L, Pannick D (eds) (2004) Human rights law and practice. Butterworth, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreham NA (2008) The right to respect for private life in the European Convention on human rights: a re-examination. Eur Hum Rights Law Rev 1:44–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainey B, Wicks E, Ovey C (2014) The European Convention on human rights, 6th ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, pp 361 et seqq

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehman J (2010) International human rights law, 2nd edn. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Rengel A (2013) Privacy in the 21st century. Brill/Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roagna I (2012) Protecting the right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on human rights. Council of Europe, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo C (1999) Article 8 § 1. In: Pettiti L-E, Decaux E, Imbert PH (sous la direction de) La Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Commentaire article par article. Economica, Paris, pp 307–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze M (2009) Understanding the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. http://www.handicap-international.fr/fileadmin/documents/publications/HICRPDManualpdf. Accessed 6 Apr 2015

  • Sottiaux S (2008) Terrorism and the limitations of rights. The ECHR and the US Constitution. Hart Publishing, Oxford/Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright D, de Hert P (eds) (2012) Privacy impact assessment. Springer, Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for International Legal Studies (ISGI), National Research Council (CNR), Rome, Italy

    Valentina Della Fina

Authors
  1. Valentina Della Fina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valentina Della Fina .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for International Legal Studies, National Research Council (CNR), Rome, Italy

    Valentina Della Fina

  2. Institute for International Legal Studies, National Research Council (CNR), Rome, Italy

    Rachele Cera

  3. Institute for International Legal Studies, National Research Council (CNR), Rome, Italy

    Giuseppe Palmisano

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fina, V.D. (2017). Article 22 [Respect for Privacy]. In: Della Fina, V., Cera, R., Palmisano, G. (eds) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43790-3_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43790-3_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43788-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43790-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation