| 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).”
|