CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juillet 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 26 July 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 36705/16 Eleni MARGARI against Greece lodged on 17 June 2016 communicated on 7 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the publication of the applicant’s photograph and personal data in the press for a period of six months following her being charged with certain offences. The applicant complains that the publication took place following the public prosecutor’s order to that effect, without her having prior knowledge of it, without her being able to contest the decision and without her being separated from her co-accused as regards the offences she was being charged with, which gave to the public the impression that she had been charged with more serious (forms of) offences that she had actually been. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the publication of the applicant’s photograph and personal data in the press following her being charged with an offence interfere with her right to respect for her private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2, taking also into account the fact that the applicant was not heard before the decision was taken, could not contest the decision and was not separated from her fellow co-accused as to the exact (form of) offences with which she had been charged?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention?