individual communication to the united nations ... - Community Law

22The State of Victoria has failed to adopt sufficient legislative and practical protectionfrom and between private citizens, particularly where a home is part of a lease thatfalls outside the scope of a “residential tenancy”. There are no criminal sanctions forunlawful evictions and therefore no compulsion for police to intervene in matters suchas the Author‟s, as these are usually dismissed as “civil matters”.The equivalent to Article 17 of the ICCPR in the European Convention on HumanRights („ECHR‟) is Article 8, which provides:1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and hiscorrespondence.2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this rightexcept such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic societyin the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of thecountry, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of heath or morals,or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.In Novoseletskiy v Ukraine, the Melitopol State Teacher Training Institute (“theInstitute”), which was the applicant's employer at the time, granted the applicantindefinite authorisation to occupy and use a two-room flat in a building in Melitopolon the Institute's books. The Institute annulled its decision and granted authorisationto occupy and use the flat to T., another of its employees. T., accompanied by fourwitnesses, entered the flat. They noted that the flat was empty and made a statementto that effect. According to the applicant, his possessions were removed or stolenfrom the flat. The Court observed in this case:68. The Court draws attention to its settled case-law, in accordancewith which Article 8, while primarily intended to protect the individualagainst arbitrary interference on the part of the public authorities, mayalso entail the adoption by the latter of measures to secure the rightsguaranteed by that Article even in the sphere of relations betweenindividuals (see, among many other authorities, López Ostra v. Spain,judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, pp. 54-55, § 51,and Surugiu v. Romania, no. 48995/99, § 59, 20 April 2004).69. Whether the case is analysed in terms of a positive duty on theState or in terms of an interference by a public authority to be justifiedin accordance with paragraph 2, the applicable principles are broadlysimilar. In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that hasto be struck between the competing interests of the individual and ofthe community as a whole. Furthermore, even in relation to the positiveobligations flowing from the first paragraph of Article 8, in striking therequired balance the aims mentioned in the second paragraph may beof a certain relevance (see Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, § 55,ECHR 2004-X).70. Moreover, the scope of this obligation will inevitably vary in thelight of the diversity of situations obtaining in Contracting States andthe choices that must be made in terms of priorities and resources. NorAshling Gandy v Australia, Individual Communication to the Human Rights Committee