Recording dissemination images
In Von Hannover v Germany involved proceedings by Princess Caroline of Monaco. She claimed proceedings in Germany inadequately protected her against the publication of private photographs. The court stated.
“the Court reiterates the concept of private life extends to aspects relating to personal identity such as o the person’s name or a person’s picture. Furthermore, private life ……includes a person’s physical and psychological integrity; the guarantee afforded by Article 8 of the Convention is primarily to ensure the development without outside interference of the personality of each individual in his relations with other human beings. There is therefore a zone of interaction of a person with others even in a public context which may fall within the scope of public life.
As regards photos with a view to defining the scope of the protection afforded by Article 8 against arbitrary interference by public authority the European Commission of Human Rights have regard to whether the photographs are related to private or public matters and whether the material thus obtained was envisaged for a limited use is likely to be made available to the general public.
The court indicated that it considered.
a fundamental distinction needs to be made between reporting facts – even controversial ones – capable of contributing to a debate in a democratic society relating to politicians in the exercise of their functions, for example, and reporting details of the private life of an individual who moreover in this case does not exercise official functions. While in the former case, the press exercises its vital role of “watchdog” in a democracy by contributing to imparting information and ideas on matters of public interest, it does not do so in the latter case.
In a further case arising from the criteria set out in the first court’s judgement, it was found that the German court had balanced the right of the publishers against the private right of Princess Caroline. The key question is whether the photographs contributed to a debate of general interest in the circumstances concerned.
Sciacca v Italy related to a non-public figure. Photographs taken by a state agency were published in newspapers. This was found to violate Article 8 because it was not in accordance with law.
In Khuzhin v Russia, the publication of photographs on television of persons accused of serious crimes was found to have no legitimate purpose informational and to violate Article 8.
In Mosley v UK the applicant complained of the insufficiency of UK court procedures for prior restraint by way of injunction of the publication of materials claimed to violate the guarantee of protection for private life. There was no legal obligation on a tabloid newspaper to go prone notice of publication of material. The court considered in view of the right of freedom of expression that such a requirement would be unduly onerous on the press and disrupt political and investigative journalism. In particular circumstances there was held to be some element of public interest in the story
In Peck v UK the impact of CCTV was considered. Generally, security cameras in public streets and public places such as shopping centres which serve a legitimate purpose breach Article 8.
The court indicated that monitoring in a public place would not generally constitute interference with a person\’s private life. However systematic and permanent retention of materials may give rise to interference. In particular circumstances, there was a breach as the material had been shown without consent and without disguising the person’s identity.
In Perry v UK a suspect refused to participate in an identification parade. He was subject to covert filming in the police station and the footage was used for identification purposes in the trial. Because of the irregularity of using the station camera facilities breaching national criminal investigation rules, there was held to be a breach of Article 8.