58955\/13<\/a><\/p>\nDecision 24.9.2019 [Section I]<\/p>\n
Article 8<\/strong>
\nArticle 8-1<\/strong>
\nRespect for private life<\/strong><\/p>\nPhotograph published in lifestyle magazine with erroneous caption, identifying applicant as someone else: Article 8 inapplicable; inadmissible<\/p>\n
Facts \u2013 A photograph of the applicant, showing her clapping at a concert, was published by a lifestyle magazine. The caption erroneously identified her as another person, namely the wife of the then mayor of a city. Her civil action for damages against the publisher was ultimately dismissed.<\/p>\n
Law \u2013 Article 8: The taking of the applicant\u2019s photograph in a public place at a public event and its subsequent publication did not in itself raise a particular issue under Article 8. The key issue was the erroneous designation of the applicant\u2019s name.<\/p>\n
The publication had contained no disparaging statements as regards the applicant and there had been no distortion or other interference in respect of her photograph which had been small and had simply depicted her clapping at a concert. The purpose of the publication and the context in which the impugned photograph had been used had been to inform the public of the fact that a popular-music concert had been held and that many celebrities had attended it.<\/p>\n
The domestic court had found that the erroneous information had not been capable of causing the applicant any prejudice, reasoning that the mayor\u2019s wife was not perceived by the public as a negative person in any way. Having regard to their direct and continuous contact with their societies and their knowledge of local circumstances, it was primarily for the domestic courts to assess how well known a person was, especially where that person was mainly known at a national level. The Court agreed with the domestic court\u2019s finding that the published information had been incapable of giving rise to the applicant\u2019s denigration in the eyes of the public since those who recognised her in the photograph obviously knew that she was not the mayor\u2019s wife, and the mere indication of the name of the mayor\u2019s wife next to the applicant\u2019s photograph did not in itself give rise to any negative connotations concerning the applicant.<\/p>\n
The publication of a photograph had in general to be considered to constitute a more substantial interference with the right to respect for private life than the mere communication of the person\u2019s name. Thus, in so far as the manner in which the photograph had been obtained did not raise any issue under Article 8, the mere communication of an erroneous name next to the photograph, without any negative connotations associated with that name and\/or the distortion of the photograph, could not be considered a particularly substantial interference with the right to respect for private life. The Court was unable to find that the false impression created by the impugned photograph had been objectively capable of creating any negative public perception of the applicant.<\/p>\n
Although the erroneous placement of the name of the mayor\u2019s wife next to the photograph of the applicant might have caused some distress to her, the level of seriousness associated with that erroneous labelling and the inconvenience she had suffered did not give rise to an issue \u2013 neither in the context of the protection of her image nor her honour and reputation \u2013 under Article 8.<\/p>\n
Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae).<\/p>\n
(See Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], 76639\/11, 25 September 2018, Information Note 221; Med\u017elis Islamske Zajednice Br\u010dko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], 17224\/11, 27 June 2017, Information Note 208; and compare Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associ\u00e9s v. France [GC], 40454\/07, 10 November 2015, Information Note 190, and Eerik\u00e4inen and Others v. Finland, 3514\/02, 10 February 2009, Information Note 116)<\/p>\n