| Applicant name | TÜZÜNATAÇ |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Turkey |
| Application no. | 14852/18 |
| Date | 07/03/2023 |
| Judges | Arnfinn Bårdsen, président, Egidijus Kūris, Pauliine Koskelo, Saadet Yüksel, Frédéric Krenc, Diana Sârcu, Davor Derenčinović |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Positive obligation |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy; procedural privacy |
| Keywords | Publication video actres |
| Facts of the case | The Court notes that the present application concerns the broadcast by a national television channel of a video recording containing images of intimate moments that the applicant shared with her partner, and which had been filmed while the two protagonists were on the terrace of the applicant’s apartment. The applicant complains about the rejection by the national authorities of her claim for damages in the context of the civil action she had brought in relation to this video recording. |
| Analysis | The Court observes at the outset that the applicant is an actress enjoying considerable notoriety among the public. Given the fame that her roles in films and television series had brought her, she was undoubtedly followed by the specialized press and well known to the public interested in audiovisual culture. The video, relating applicant’s intimate life, cannot as such, whatever the notoriety of the person concerned, be considered to contribute to any debate of general interest for society. Interestingly, the Court refers to the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine, rather than the legitimate expectation of privacy doctrine, when it finds that the applicant could not have expected to be filmed or to be the subject of a public report, and that she did not cooperate with the media. Consequently, significant weight must be given to the factor relating to his reasonable expectations of private life. Indeed, even if the terrace of the applicant’s apartment was visible from the public road where the journalists were, the comments they exchanged in the video suggest that they made the recording secretly. They therefore tried to hide so as not to be seen by the applicant and her partner while they were filming. Having regard, on the one hand, to the content of the video broadcast, which related to details of the applicant’s romantic and intimate life and in no way related to a subject of general interest and, on the other hand, in the circumstances, not in conformity with the standards of responsible journalism, in which these images were obtained and disseminated by the journalists, without the consent of the person concerned, the domestic courts should have shown more great rigor when weighing the different interests involved. |
| Other Article violation? | No violation 6 ECHR |
| Damage awarded | The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time limit allocated to her in accordance with the Court’s procedure. Consequently, the Court considers that there is no reason to award him any sum in this respect. |
| Documents | Judgment |