A selection of key paragraph(s) can be found below the document.
Paragraph 52: “In the Court’s view, GPS surveillance is by its very nature to be distinguished from other methods of visual or acoustical surveillance which are, as a rule, more susceptible of interfering with a person’s right to respect for private life, because they disclose more information on a person’s conduct, opinions or feelings. Having regard to the principles established in its case-law, it nevertheless finds the above-mentioned factors [“the investigation authorities, for some three months, systematically collected and stored data determining, in the circumstances, the applicant’s whereabouts and movements in the public sphere” (paragraph 51)] sufficient to conclude that the applicant’s observation via GPS, in the circumstances, and the processing and use of the data obtained thereby in the manner described above amounted to an interference with his private life as protected by Article 8 § 1.”
NB! The Court did not find a breach of Article 8 in this case (see paragraphs 77-81).