Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 156
October 2012
Misick v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 10781/10
Decision 16.10.2012 [Section IV]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
The right to private life does not protect a right to take part in public life as a politician: inadmissible
Facts – The applicant was the former Premier and an elected member of the House of Assembly of the Turks and Caicos Islands, a British Overseas Territory in the West Indies. However, in 2009, owing to concerns of systemic corruption, the United Kingdom assumed direct rule over the people of the Territory, dissolved the House of Assembly, and removed all elected officials for a period of two years. The applicant was refused permission to seek judicial review of that decision in the Divisional Court after the respondent Government withdrew the application of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (right to free elections) from the Territory. In his application to the European Court the applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his removal from his position as the elected representative of the North Caicos East constituency had violated his right to respect for his private life.
Law – Article 8: It is not for Article 8 to fill a gap in fundamental rights protection which results from the decision of the respondent State to withdraw the application of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Territory. Therefore Article 8 should not, in principle, be interpreted in such a way as to incorporate the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of territories to which the latter provision does not apply. Further, participation in politics, in particular the exercise of parliamentary mandate, is very much a matter of public life, to which Article 8 can have only limited application. Where aspects strictly related to private or family life are at stake Article 8 considerations may arise notwithstanding the public nature of politics. However, in a case like the present one, where the applicant had not provided any concrete details of how the dissolution of the House of Assembly encroached upon his privacy or private life guarantees, including his ability to develop relationships with the outside world, but merely sought to assert a right to take part in public life as an elected politician, Article 8 was not engaged.
Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae).
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy