RECHNUNGSHOF V. OSTER REICHISCHER RUNDFUNK, 20.5.2003 (“RUNDFUNK”)

[Article 8 (Right to Private Life) of ECHR](https://docs.legal.digital/coe/#article-8): To the extent Directive 95/46 governs the processing of personal data liable to infringe fundamental freedoms, in particular the right to privacy, must be interpreted in light of that right, which forms an integral part of the general principles of EU law. [Article 8 ECHR](https://docs.legal.digital/coe/#article-8) states that public authorities must not interfere with the right to respect for private life, unless it is in accordance with law and is necessary in a democratic society to protect certain interests. (¶¶70–71)

Directive 95/46 itself, while having as its principal aim to ensure the free movement of personal data, provides in Article 1(1) that ‘Member States shall protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data’. Several recitals in its preamble, in particular recitals 10 and 11, also express that requirement.

In this respect, it is to be noted that Article 8 of the Convention, while stating in paragraph 1 the principle that the public authorities must not interfere with the right to respect for private life, accepts in paragraph 2 that such an interference is possible where it is ‘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 or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.