Guide on Article 8 of the Convention – Right to respect for private and family life
bulk interception regimes, Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] and Centrum för rättvisa v. Sweden [GC]. 171. As regards online activities, information associated with specific dynamic IP addresses facilitating the identification of the author of such activities, constitutes, in principle, personal data which are not accessible to the public. The use of such data may therefore fall within the scope of Article 8 (Benedik v. Slovenia, §§ 107-108). In that regard, the fact that the applicant had not concealed his dynamic IP address had not been a decisive factor for assessing whether his expectation of privacy had been reasonable (§ 116). Conversely, the anonymity linked to online activities is an important factor which must be taken into account (§ 117).
1. Right to one’s image and photographs; the publishing of photos, images, and articles 28 172. Regarding photographs, the Court has stated that a person’s image constitutes one of the chief attributes of his or her personality, as it reveals the person’s unique characteristics and distinguishes the person from his or her peers. The right to the protection of one’s image is thus one of the essential components of personal development (López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], §§ 87-91 and the references cited therein). Although freedom of expression includes the publication of photographs, the Court has nonetheless found that the protection of the rights and reputation of others takes on particular importance in this area, as photographs may contain very personal or even intimate information about an individual or his or her family (Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], § 103). Even a neutral photograph accompanying a story portraying an individual in a negative light constitutes a serious intrusion into the private life of a person who does not seek publicity (Rodina v. Latvia, § 131). The Court has articulated the key factors to consider when balancing the right to reputation under Article 8 and freedom of expression under Article 10 as follows: contribution to a debate of general interest; how well known is the person concerned and what is the subject of the report?; prior conduct of the person concerned; content, form and consequences of the publication; circumstances in which the photos were taken; and severity of the sanction imposed (ibid., §§ 108113; Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], §§ 89-95; Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], §§ 90-93; Dupate v. Latvia, §§ 49-76; Rodina v. Latvia, § 104). 173. Thus, everyone, including people known to the public, has a legitimate expectation that his or her private life will be protected (Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], §§ 50-53 and 95-99; Sciacca v. Italy, § 29; Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece, § 40; Alkaya v. Turkey, protecting the private address of a famous actress). However, this is not necessarily a conclusive factor (Bărbulescu v. Romania [GC], §§ 73). The Court’s case-law mainly presupposes the individual’s right to control the use of their image, including the right to refuse publication thereof (Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece, §§ 40 and 43, in which photographs of a newborn baby were taken in a private clinic without the parents’ prior consent and the negatives retained; Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], § 96; Dupate v. Latvia, §§ 49-76, in which a magazine had published covertly-taken photographs of the applicant, who was the partner of a public figure, when she was leaving hospital following the birth of their child; Hájovský v. Slovakia, § 29, in which a newspaper published private information and non-blurred photographs of a private individual taken covertly under false pretences). 174. While the fact that someone’s picture has already appeared in an earlier publication might be considered in the balancing process, the fact that information is already in the public domain does not necessarily remove the protection of Article 8, especially if the person concerned neither re28
See also the Guide on Data protection.
European Court of Human Rights
45/161
Last update: 31.08.2021
