Applicant name X.
Applicant type Natural person
Country The United Kingdom
Decision no. 5877/72
Date 12/10/1973
Institution Commission (Plenary)
Type Decision
Outcome Art. 8 Inadmissible
Reason No interference
Type of privacy Informational privacy
Keywords Photograph; police; de minimis
Facts of the case Person was arrested at a demonstration and the police took a photograph. Photo was retained for identification purposes in the future, should the applicant be arrested again.
Analysis The Commission stresses first that there was no invasion of the applicant’s privacy in the sense that the authorities entered her home and took photographs of her there. This fits in the line of its early jurisprudence, in which processing personal data was not considered an interference per se of Article 8 ECHR. Only extraordinary data processing activities were considered to pass the de minimis rule. Second, the Commission stresses that the photo was take at a public event and furthermore, that the applicant was there volluntarily. Again, a contrario , this seems to imply that the Commission will find only photos taken in private domains or in domains where the applicant is involuntarily present to be an interference with Article 8 ECHR. Third, it stresses that the photos were taken solely for the purpose of future identification on similar public occasions and there is no suggestion that they have been made available to the general public or used for any other purpose. “Bearing these factors in mind, the Commission finds that the taking and retention of the photographs of the applicant could not be considered to amount to an interference with her private life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8).”
Documents Decision