CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 septembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 100 August-September 2007 Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece - 1234/05 Decision 6.9.2007 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Photograph of new-born baby taken without the consent of the parents: admissible   Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Dismissal of sole ground of appeal on points of law for want of clarity owing to a failure to present the facts of the case as established by the court of appeal: admissible   The applicants are the parents of a child who was placed immediately after birth in a sterile unit under the constant surveillance of clinic staff, who were the only persons authorised to enter the unit. On the following day, the child’s mother was given two photographs of the baby, viewed face on, taken by a professional photographer attached to the clinic. The applicants complained to the management of the clinic about the photographer’s intrusion into an area to which only clinic staff should have had access and about the possible inconvenience caused to their new‑born baby by having his face photographed, particularly as it had been done without their prior consent. When the hospital failed to respond positively to their complaint, the applicants applied to the court of first instance and, acting on behalf of their child, claimed non‑pecuniary damage for an alleged infringement of his personality rights. The court rejected the claim as ill-founded, ruling that, in any event, the new-born child’s personality rights could not have been infringed, as his psychological and emotional state was not developed immediately after birth, nor could the image of his face on a photograph adversely affect his future development. On an appeal by the applicants, the court of appeal upheld the impugned decision. The Court of Cassation dismissed their appeal on points of law as too vague, as they had not specified the factual circumstances on which the court of appeal had based its decision to dismiss their appeal. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 – Preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies joined to the merits – The ground on which the Court of Cassation had declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible, namely that the appellant had not set out the facts of the case as established by the court of appeal after evidence had been taken, was linked to the substance of the complaint. Admissible under Article 8 (following dismissal of the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies): As control over one’s image was a core component of personal development, Article 8 could come into play solely on account of the fact that the person in question had not had the opportunity to object beforehand to his image being reproduced. In addition, the photographer had kept the negatives of the photographs, which he could have used in the future against the wishes of the child and/or his parents. Article 8 was therefore applicable.   © 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