The court was asked whether the applicant’s rights under Article 8 had been infringed by the release to the press of an identity photograph taken of her by the Italian Revenue Police while she was under arrest and investigation for various criminal offences. It was a ‘vertical’ application of Article 8.
Revenue police compiled a file on her containing, among other things, her photographs and fingerprints. A public prosecutor held a press conference in which the allegations against the applicant and others were discussed. Photographs from the police file were supplied to newspapers. Following this, two newspapers published the photographs of the applicant in articles which stated that she and others had been charged with serious offences. The case against the applicant ended with a special procedure for imposition of a penalty agreed between the applicant and the prosecution. The penalty involved the imposition of a term of imprisonment and a fine.
Held: The court referred to von Hannover and said: ‘Regarding whether there has been an interference, the Court reiterates that the concept of private life includes elements relating to a person’s right to their picture and that the publication of a photograph falls within the scope of private life. It has also given guidelines regarding the scope of private life and found that there is: ‘a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of ‘private life’.
In the instant case the applicant’s status as an ‘ordinary person’ enlarges the zone of interaction which may fall within the scope of private life, and the fact that the applicant was the subject of criminal proceedings cannot curtail the scope of such protection.’
(2006) 43 EHRR 20, 50774/99,  ECHR 8
Cited – Von Hannover v Germany ECHR 24-Jun-2004
Princess Caroline of Monaco who had, at some time, received considerable attention in the media throughout Europe, complained at the publication of photographs taken of her withour her permission.
Held: There was no doubt that the publication . .
Cited – Murray v Express Newspapers Plc and Another ChD 7-Aug-2007
The claimant, now aged four and the son of a famous author, was photographed by use of a long lens, but in a public street. He now sought removal of the photograph from the defendant’s catalogue, and damages for breach of confidence.
Held: The . .
Cited – Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd; Murray v Express Newspapers CA 7-May-2008
The claimant, a famous writer, complained on behalf of her infant son that he had been photographed in a public street with her, and that the photograph had later been published in a national newspaper. She appealed an order striking out her claim . .
Cited – Marper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
Cited – JR38, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) SC 1-Jul-2015
The appellant was now 18 years old. In July 2010 two newspapers published an image of him. He was at that time barely 14 years old. These photographs had been published by the newspapers at the request of the police. The publication of the . .
Cited – L, Regina (On the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis SC 29-Oct-2009
Rebalancing of Enhanced Disclosure Requirements
The Court was asked as to the practice of supplying enhanced criminal record certificates under the 1997 Act. It was said that the release of reports of suspicions was a disproportionate interference in the claimants article 8 rights to a private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Media
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227664