CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 octobre 2012

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 156 October 2012 Alkaya v. Turkey - 42811/06 Judgment 9.10.2012 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Disclosure by large-circulation national newspaper of exact residential address of a famous actress: violation Facts – The applicant is well known in Turkey as a cinema and theatre actress. In 2002 her home was burgled while she was there. Three days later a national daily newspaper published a report on the burglary. The article gave details of the applicant’s exact address: the area she lived in, the street name and number and the number of her flat. She brought an action for damages which was dismissed by the domestic courts. Law – Article 8: The choice of one’s place of residence was an essentially private matter and the free exercise of that choice formed an integral part of the sphere of personal autonomy protected by Article 8.   A person’s home address thus constituted personal data or information which fell within the scope of private life and as such was eligible for the protection granted to the latter. It therefore had to be ascertained whether the State had struck a fair balance between the applicant’s right to protection of her private life and the right of the opposing party to freedom of expression under Article 10. The decisive element in weighing those rights had to be the contribution which the information that had been published made to a debate on a matter of public interest. The Court noted that the applicant had in no way sought to challenge the publication of the article reporting on the burglary, but had simply complained of the disclosure of her home address. There was no evidence that appeared capable of justifying on public-interest grounds the newspaper’s decision to disclose the applicant’s address without her consent. Furthermore, the national courts had not weighed up the competing interests at stake, but had merely referred to the fact that the applicant was well known before finding that the disclosure of her address could not be considered liable to make her a target or to infringe her personality rights. Neither did they appear to have taken into consideration the possible repercussions on the applicant’s life of the publication of her home address in a national newspaper just a few days after her home had been burgled, despite the fact that she had complained of the inappropriate behaviour of persons who had turned up outside her home and the heightened sense of insecurity she felt as a result. Accordingly, the domestic courts had not afforded the applicant sufficient and effective protection of her private life. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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