{"id":72266,"date":"2021-06-28T22:22:02","date_gmt":"2021-06-28T20:22:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lexxion.eu\/dpi\/data-protection-insider-issue-51\/"},"modified":"2021-06-28T22:22:02","modified_gmt":"2021-06-28T20:22:02","slug":"data-protection-insider-issue-51","status":"publish","type":"dpi","link":"https:\/\/www.lexxion.eu\/en\/dpi\/data-protection-insider-issue-51\/","title":{"rendered":"Data Protection Insider, Issue 51"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

– ECtHR Rules on Unlawful Covert Video-Recording in Berlizev –<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

On 8th July 2021, the ECtHR ruled in the case of Berlizev v. Ukraine.<\/em><\/a> In terms of the facts, the case concerns the applicant\u2019s conviction, before Ukrainian courts, of having accepted a bribe, the evidence for which was gathered by a covert police operation including video-recordings of the applicant. The applicant complained to the ECtHR under Article 8 \u2013 right to respect for private and family life \u2013 and Article 6 \u2013 right to a fair trial \u2013 that \u2018the police unlawfully recorded him and that his conviction was based on unlawfully obtained evidence.\u2019 The ECtHR found in favour of the applicant\u2019s Article 8 complaint, whilst rejecting the Article 6 complaint as manifestly ill-founded. In terms of the Article 8 complaint, the Court concluded that the way the video-recording had been obtained was not in accordance with the law and therefore could not constitute a legitimate interference with the applicant\u2019s rights. In particular, the Court observed: \u2018the video-recording of the covert operation in respect of the applicant [in line with national law] had to be authorised by a court decision… This requirement of domestic law constituted an important procedural safeguard against arbitrary interference with private life. The Court has endorsed the importance of this safeguard, emphasising that once it is put in place, the judicial authorities should provide relevant and sufficient reasons for their authorisations of covert operations\u2026 However, there is no indication that in the present case any such prior judicial approval was ever obtained by the police.\u2019 Considering prior case law, this is not a surprising decision.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\n

– ECtHR Rules on Newspaper\u2019s Publication of Private Information in H\u00e1jovsk\u00fd –<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

On 1st July, the ECtHR ruled in the case of H\u00e1jovsk\u00fd v. Slovakia.<\/em><\/a> In terms of the facts, the case concerns a newspaper article about the applicant\u2019s efforts to obtain a child through surrogacy procedures, in which \u2018private information and non-blurred images of [the] applicant taken covertly and under pretences\u2019 were published. The applicant complained to the national Courts about the article. The national Courts, however, found in favour of the newspaper. The applicant then complained to the ECtHR claiming the publication, and the outcome of the deliberations of the national Courts, constituted a breach of their Article 8 \u2013 right to respect for private and family life \u2013 and Article 6 \u2013 right to a fair trial \u2013 rights. The ECtHR found in favour of the applicant \u2013 although, in light of the reasoning concerning Article 8, found that \u2018no separate issue [arose] under Article 6 of the Convention\u2019. The Court once again highlighted its criteria for considering whether newspaper publications of private information strike a fair balance between freedom of expression and privacy: \u2018the main criteria of assessment are contribution to a debate of public interest; the degree of notoriety of the person affected; the subject of the report; the prior conduct of the person concerned; the content, form and consequences of the publication; and the circumstances in which photographs were taken.\u2019 In light of these criteria and the facts of the case the ECtHR concluded: \u2018while the domestic courts did engage in a balancing exercise between the right to private life and freedom of expression, that exercise was not carried out in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court\u2019s case-law. The assessment of the applicant\u2019s prior conduct was flawed\u2026and the manner in which the photographs had been taken was not taken into account… Most importantly, none of the domestic courts would appear to have assessed the contribution to the public-interest debate of broadcasting images of the applicant without blurring them\u2019. This is the latest in a series of cases concerning news media and the balance between freedom of expression and privacy.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

– EDPB Holds its 51st Plenary Session<\/strong>\u00a0–<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

On 7th July, the EDPB held its 51st Plenary Session.<\/a> During the meeting, the following documents were adopted:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n