> There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of [the right to respect for private and family life] except such as 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.
Therefore, the court must determine if the interference is necessary in a democratic society to determine if it is permissible under the ECHR or not. Per paragraph 273 of the decision[1]:
> An interference will be considered "necessary in a democratic society" for the achievement of a legitimate aim if it answers a "pressing social need" and, in particular, if the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" and if it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
> The Convention system has a fundamentally subsidiary role. The national authorities have direct democratic legitimation in so far as the protection of human rights is concerned and, by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, they are in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions.
[1] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-209039%...}
Edit: HN breaks the link - it needs a "}" at the end: hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-209039%22]}