Anastasios Reklos

EHRM, 15 januari 2009, Application no. 1234/05, Reklos en Davourlis tegen Griekenland

Portretrecht. Pas geboren baby gefotografeerd op intensive care unit ziekenhuis. “The key issue in the present case is not the nature, harmless or otherwise, of the applicants’ son’s representation on the offending photographs, but the fact that the photographer kept them without the applicants’ consent. The baby’s image was thus retained in the hands of the photographer in an identifiable form with the possibility of subsequent use against the wishes of the person concerned and/or his parents.”

The applicants are the parents of Anastasios Reklos, who was born on 31 March 1997 in a private clinic, I. Immediately after birth the baby was placed in a sterile unit under the constant supervision of the clinic’s staff. Only its doctors and nurses had access to this unit. On 1 April 1997 two photographs of the new-born baby, taken face on, were presented to the second applicant. The photographs had been taken inside the sterile unit by a professional photographer located on the first floor of the clinic. The clinic informed its clients that photography services were available.

The applicants complained to the clinic’s management about the photographer’s intrusion into a unit to which only the clinic’s staff should have had access, adding that the new-born baby was likely to have been upset by the taking of photographs face on and, most importantly, that they had not given their prior consent.

“41.  In the present case the Court first observes that, as regards the conditions in which the offending pictures were taken, the applicants did not at any time give their consent, either to the management of the clinic or to the photographer himself. In this connection it should be noted that the applicants’ son, not being a public or newsworthy figure, did not fall within a category which in certain circumstances may justify, on public-interest grounds, the recording of a person’s image without his knowledge or consent (see Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria, no. 34315/96, § 37, 26 February 2002). On the contrary, the person concerned was a minor and the exercise of the right to protection of his image was overseen by his parents. Accordingly, the applicants’ prior consent to the taking of their son’s picture was indispensable in order to establish the context of its use. The management of the clinic I. did not, however, seek the applicants’ consent and even allowed the photographer to enter the sterile unit, access to which was restricted to the clinic’s doctors and nurses, in order to take the pictures in question.

42.  In addition, the Court finds that it is not insignificant that the photographer was able to keep the negatives of the offending photographs, in spite of the express request of the applicants, who exercised parental authority, that the negatives be delivered up to them. Admittedly, the photographs simply showed a face-on portrait of the baby and did not show the applicants’ son in a state that could be regarded as degrading, or in general as capable of infringing his personality rights. However, the key issue in the present case is not the nature, harmless or otherwise, of the applicants’ son’s representation on the offending photographs, but the fact that the photographer kept them without the applicants’ consent. The baby’s image was thus retained in the hands of the photographer in an identifiable form with the possibility of subsequent use against the wishes of the person concerned and/or his parents (see, mutatis mutandis, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 57, ECHR 2001-IX).

43.  The Court notes that, during the examination of the case at issue, the domestic courts failed to take into account the fact that the applicants had not given their consent to the taking of their son’s photograph or to the retention by the photographer of the corresponding negatives. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Greek courts did not, in the present case, sufficiently guarantee the applicants’ son’s right to the protection of his private life.

There has therefore been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

Lees de uitspraak hier.