CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 octobre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 112 October 2008 Khuzhin and Others v. Russia - 13470/02 Judgment 23.10.2008 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Photographs of a defendant in criminal proceedings released to the press and shown on television, without his consent: violation   Facts : The applicants are three brothers. They were arrested in 1999 and subsequently accused of abducting and torturing a vagrant, who they had forced into physical labour in exchange for extremely low pay. A few days before their trial, a national television channel broadcast a talk show during which three prosecution officials discussed in detail the brothers’ case. One of the officials referred to them as hardened criminals and said that the “crime” they had committed was characteristic of their “cruelty and meaningless brutality”. During the talk show, black-and-white passport-size photos of the applicants were shown full screen. A local newspaper also subsequently published an article about the affair. The brothers lodged several complaints about the press coverage of the proceedings against them, without success. The prosecutor’s office informed them that, under domestic law, it had the right to disclose materials in the case-file and make them available to journalists. Ultimately, the brothers were found guilty as charged and sentenced to imprisonment.   Law : The first applicant had complained that the police had taken his passport photograph from the criminal case-file and, without his consent, given it to a journalist who had used it in a television show. This had constituted an interference with his right to respect for his private life. No justification for the interference had been put forward by the Government. Where a photograph published in the context of reporting on pending criminal proceedings had no information value in itself, there had to be compelling reasons to justify an interference with the defendant’s right to respect for his private life. Even assuming that there was a lawful basis for granting the press access to the case-file, in the instant case the Court did not see any legitimate aim for the interference in question. Being in custody at the material time, the first applicant was not a fugitive from justice and the showing of his photograph could not have been necessary for enlisting public support to determine his whereabouts. Nor could it be said to have bolstered the public character of judicial proceedings because at the time of the recording and the first airing of the television show the trial had not yet begun. Accordingly, in the circumstances of the present case the release of the first applicant’s photograph from the criminal file to the press had not pursued any of the legitimate aims enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 8. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). See also Sciacca v. Italy (50774/99, 11 January 2005), Information Note no. 71. The Court also found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 and Article 1 of Protocol N° 1. For more information, see press release N° 753.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes