Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohus
15.01.2009
Facts
The applicants were the parents of a new-born baby who was placed in a sterile unit to which only medical staff at the clinic had access. The following day the mother was presented with photographs of the baby taken face on. The applicants protested about the intrusion of a professional photographer working in the clinic into an environment to which only medical staff should have had access, and the possible annoyance caused to the infant by taking photographs from the front and without their prior consent. In view of the clinic’s indifference to their complaints and its refusal to hand over the negatives of the photographs, the applicants brought an action for damages in the court.
Complaint
The applicants complained that there had been an unlawful interference with their child’s right to respect for his private life and relied on Article 8 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court noted that the applicants had not at any stage given their consent for the photograph to be taken. The person photographed was a minor and his right to control his image was exercised by his parents. However, instead of seeking the applicants’ consent, the authorities at the clinic had allowed the photographer to enter a sterile environment, to which only the staff of the clinic had access, to take the photographs. The photographer had also been permitted to keep the negatives despite an express request by the applicants, who had parental authority, for them to be handed over. The baby’s image had been captured by the photographer in a form in which it could be identified and had subsequently been used in a manner that was contrary to its parents’ wishes. The domestic courts had not considered the lack of parental consent for the photographs to be taken or for them to be kept by the photographer and had, thus failed sufficiently to guarantee the child’s right to the protection of its private life.