Information Note on the Court’s case-law 189
October 2015
Bremner v. Turkey - 37428/06
Judgment 13.10.2015 [Section II]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Television broadcast showing non-blurred image of an individual obtained using a hidden camera: violation
Facts – In June 1997 the applicant appeared in footage filmed using a hidden camera for a television documentary about meetings arranged by him with a person who had responded to his advertisement for free Christian literature. The presenter indicated that the programme concerned covert activities in Turkey by “foreign pedlars in religion”.
In June 1997 the public prosecutor brought proceedings against the applicant for insulting God and Islam. He was found not guilty by the Criminal Court in April 1998. The applicant then sued the presenter and producers of the documentary for damages. At last instance his claim was dismissed, the court finding that the offending footage was part of a documentary on a newsworthy subject of interest to public opinion.
The applicant claimed that he had subsequently been obliged by his landlord, for security reasons, to vacate his flat and that he had ultimately been removed to Bulgaria by the authorities.
Law – Article 8: The documentary concerned religious proselytising, which was clearly a subject of general interest, and thus an area where media freedom enjoyed a heightened level of protection.
The documentary was critical and used derogatory terms such as “pedlar in religion” to describe the applicant. That expression amounted to a value judgment and as such was not susceptible of proof. In addition, media freedom allowed for a certain degree of exaggeration, or even provocation.
The documentary did not contain any gratuitous personal attacks against the applicant and did not amount to hate speech, given that it did not incite hatred or violence against a religious group and did not denigrate the convictions or beliefs of any such group.
As regards the method used to produce the documentary, a technique as intrusive and as damaging to private life as a hidden camera must in principle be used restrictively. Nevertheless, the use of covert investigation techniques might prove necessary for certain types of documentary. However, such a method of last resort had to be used in compliance with ethical principles and with restraint.
As regards the balance between the rights involved, the applicant had not placed himself in the public arena except in so far as he had published an advertisement in a newspaper. The fact of having a discussion with the person who had responded, and with friends of that person, could not have led him to suspect that he might be the subject of public criticism. He quite legitimately thought that he was merely meeting a group of individuals interested in Christianity.
No general-interest justification could be found in the documentary or in the parties’ observations for the journalists’ decision to broadcast his image without taking any precautions, for example by blurring it. Particularly in view of the fact that the applicant was not famous, there was nothing to suggest that the broadcasting of his image would be newsworthy or useful.
In those conditions, the broadcasting of the applicant’s image without any precaution could not be regarded as a contribution to a debate on a matter of general interest for society, regardless of the degree of public interest in the subject of religious proselytising.
In addition, none of the domestic courts seemed to have assessed the degree of contribution of the broadcasting of the applicant’s image, without blurring it, to a debate in the general interest.
Having regard to all those considerations, and in spite of the margin of appreciation afforded to the State in such matters, the Court found that, as to the broadcasting of the applicant’s image without blurring it, the Turkish authorities had not struck a fair balance between the competing interests. The manner in which they had dealt with the case had not provided the applicant with adequate and effective protection of his right to his own image and therefore to respect for his private life.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy