European Court of Human Rights
12 December 2013
Facts
The case concerned the taking and broadcasting of footage of the applicant drunk in a police station when he was a member of the Murmansk regional legislature, and the subsequent legal proceedings. Mr. Khmel was taken to a police station on suspicion of drunk driving. He refused to give his name, behaved in an unruly manner and would not leave the building when asked to do so. The police chief invited television crews to the station, and that afternoon Mr. Khmel was filmed whilst in a dishevelled state and acting inappropriately. Some of the footage was broadcast on public television the next day.
Complaint
Mr. Khmel complained of the filming of him at the police station and the broadcasting of the footage, which he claimed to be unlawful.
Court’s ruling
The Court reiterated that the concept of private life extends to aspects relating to personal identity, such as a person’s name or image. A person’s image constitutes one of the chief attributes of his/her personality, as it reveals the person’s unique characteristics and distinguishes the person. The Court has held on various occasions that the recording of video in the law-enforcement context or the release of the applicants’ photographs by police authorities to the media disclosed an interference with their right to respect for private life.
In the present case, a state official had borne direct responsibility for granting the media access to the applicant’s image and enabling them to retain the footage and use it for their purposes, including broadcasting it on public television and this amounted to interference with the right to respect for private life.
The Court, however, did not find a basis in national law for such actions and thus found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.