CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 juin 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 208 June 2017 Bogomolova v. Russia - 13812/09 Judgment 20.6.2017 [Section III] Article 8 Positive obligations Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Insufficient protection afforded to child’s image: violation Facts – In 2007 the applicant, a single mother, learnt that a photograph of her son had been reproduced on the cover page of a booklet entitled “Children need a family”, which was published by a centre for psychological, medical and social support. She brought civil proceedings against the centre complaining that her and her son’s honour, dignity and reputation had been damaged by the unlawful publication of her son’s photograph in a booklet calling for adoption and that the photograph had been published without her authorisation or knowledge. Her claims were dismissed. Before the European Court the applicant complained that the domestic courts had not afforded sufficient protection to her and her son’s right to respect for their private and family life. Law – Article 8: In order for Article   8 to come into play, the attack on personal reputation had to attain a certain level of seriousness and had to have been carried out in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life. Regarding photographs, a person’s image constituted one of the chief attributes of his or her personality, as it revealed that person’s unique characteristics and distinguished them from his or her peers. The right to the protection of one’s image was thus one of the essential components of personal development and presupposed the right to control the use of that image, including the right to refuse publication thereof. The effect of the publication of the photograph attained a certain level of seriousness and prejudiced the applicant’s enjoyment of her right to respect for her private life. The main issue in the case was whether the domestic courts had afforded the applicant and her son sufficient protection of their private life. In taking the decision to dismiss the applicant’s claims, the domestic courts established that the photograph had been taken with the applicant’s authorisation and that the applicant had not placed any restrictions or conditions on its use. However, they had failed to examine whether she had given her consent to the publication of the photograph. The case concerned the publication of a photograph which, at least by inference, could be seen to suggest that the applicant’s son was an orphan. Consequently, the impugned publication could have given its readers the false impression that the applicant’s son had no parents or that his parents had abandoned him. Any such impression or other similar false impressions could prejudice the public perception of the family bond and relations between the applicant and her son. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 130 in respect of pecuniary damage. (See Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece , 1234/05, 15   January 2009, Information Note   115 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes