Information Note on the Court’s case-law 71
January 2005
Sciacca v. Italie - 50774/99
Judgment 11.1.2005 [Section IV]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Absence of a legal basis for the handing over to the press by the police of a photograph of a person under house arrest: violation
Publication by the press of the photograph of a prosecuted person: violation
Facts: The applicant was a teacher in a private school which she ran together with other partners. She was arrested and charged with tax evasion and criminal association. Placed under house arrest, she was not detained in custody. The police draw up a case file on the applicant; identity photos and her fingerprints were included in it. On the same day, the prosecuting authorities gave a press conference. Newspapers reported the charges and the illegal acts concerned, and published a photograph of the applicant, taken by the police at the time of her arrest and subsequently released to the press. There was no legislation governing the photographing of persons who had been arrested and placed under house arrest without being placed in custody or the handing over of such photographs to the press. The applicant was committed for trial and the criminal proceedings ended in a sentence of one year’s imprisonment and the imposition of a fine.
Law: Article 8 – The applicant complained that the prosecuting authorities had distributed to the press a photograph of her, taken by those same authorities at the time of her arrest.
The publication of a person’s photograph, taken when criminal proceedings had been brought against him or her in the context of preliminary investigations, amounted to an “interference” in his or her right to respect for private life.
The matter was not governed by a “law” which satisfied the criteria set down in the Court’s case-law, but by custom. Although an exception to the principle of the confidentiality of preliminary investigation measures did exist in the Code of Criminal Procedure, it concerned another situation. The interference was thus not in accordance with the law.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 - The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It awarded a specified sum for the costs incurred before it.
© 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