Does the acceptance of a 'legitimate aim' in the context of Article 8 ECHR also imply its acceptance in the context of Article 14 ECHR?

Question

Suppose that the European Court of Human Rights qualifies a certain policy aim, such as the protection of the Member State's health system, as constituting a 'legitimate aim' in the context of Article 8 ECHR (Right to respect for private and family life).

• Does this imply that this aim would also be found legitimate in cases arising under Article 14 ECHR (Protection from discrimination)?

• Or are the 'legitimate aims' accepted under each of these provisions totally unrelated?

Answer 1

Yes

I will implicitly assume you are asking about Article 14 in the context of an individual's Article 8 rights being engaged. Note that Article 8 rights being engaged does not mean they are breached. Engagement with Article 14 only requires that another Article's rights have been interfered with (see: Adulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v UK for an example of an Article 14 breach without an Article 8 breach).

While Article 8 explicitly lists legitimate aims in Article 8(2) that may justify an infringement of this right, Article 14 lists no such aims. On the surface, this may appear to suggest that Article 14 is an absolute right, but case law has established a symbiotic relationship between Article 14 and the other Convention rights. In the Belgian Linguistic Case (No2), the ECtHR clarified that Article 14 infringements require an examination of a) the pursuit of a legitimate aim, and b) the proportionality of the measure.

There is no definitive list of legitimate aims that allow for an individual's Article 14 rights to lawfully be engaged. This means that the question of what constitutes a legitimate aim under Article 14 is broader than the list of Article 8 aims. However, the same aims will certainly be applicable since they have already been identified as legitimate aims under Article 8.

However, the difference arises in the context of proportionality. Whether the infringement has a "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" will be considered separately for both Article 8 and Article 14 (Belgian Linguistic Case (No2)).