TV interview of a minor without the consent of her parents. The right to respect for privacy has been violated
JUDGMENT
I.V.Ț. v. Romania 01.03.2022 (app. no. 35582/15)
SUMMARY
The case concerned a television interview a minor, without parental consent or adequate measures
to protect her identity. The interview, which concerned the death of a schoolmate, had resulted in
her being bullied and had caused her emotional stress.
The Court found in particular that the domestic appellate courts had only superficially balanced the
question of the applicant’s right to private life and the broadcaster’s right to free expression, in
particular that she had been a minor and had been interviewed without parental consent.
PROVISION
Article 8
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, I.V.Ţ, is a Romanian national who was born in 2001 and lives in Bucharest.
In 2012 a schoolmate of I.V.Ț.’s died by falling out of a train on a school trip. A reporter for a
Romanian television channel interviewed I.V.T., then aged 11, along with some other students about
the death. The consent of her parents was not sought, and her teachers were not present.
The applicant stated, among other things, that she had heard that the deceased child had fallen out
of a train without a teacher present. In particular, she said, regarding the presence of teachers,
“there should have been better care for pupils to keep them safe”.
The interview was broadcast that day. A transcript was posted on the channel’s website with the
title “Schoolmates of the girl who fell out of the train are shocked. The pupil was going to the toilet
when the tragedy occurred”.
According to the applicant, she suffered from the negative attitude of students, staff and the school
authorities towards her following the interview.
In 2013 the applicant sued the holding company of the television channel for compensation. The
Ploiești District Court found in her favour, ordering damages of 200,000 Romanian lei (approximately
40,436 euros) because of the lack of parental consent. In particular, it found that even if her face had
been blurred, she still could have been recognised.
In 2014 the Prahova County Court overturned that decision, citing journalistic freedom and public
interest, and holding that the company should not be liable for the behaviour of those in the school
community.
An appeal on points of law by the applicant was dismissed by the Ploiești Court of Appeal in 2015,
which upheld the County Court’s reasoning, holding that parental consent would not have changed
the situation.
The applicant complained under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the
European Convention on Human Rights that she had been interviewed without parental consent and
that no appropriate measures had been taken to protect her identity.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court reiterated that under the Convention, States were obliged to secure respect for private
life even in the sphere of relations of individuals between themselves within their legal systems. This
was particularly true concerning minors.
Concerning the interview itself, the Court was satisfied that it had been about a matter of public
concern. However, the applicant had been a minor and so the requirement of parental consent –
which had never been obtained – had to be weighed against that. It noted in particular that the
relevant National Audiovisual Council regulations stated “the right of the minor to his or her private
life and private image prevail[ed] over the need for information, especially in the case of a minor in a
difficult position”. The Court observed that the domestic courts had found that the applicant had
suffered from severe distress and anguish following the broadcast. Even where a news report made
a contribution to a public debate, the disclosure of private information – such as the identity of a
minor who had witnessed a dramatic event – had not to exceed editorial discretion, and had to be
justified. These considerations were more important in the present case, where the Court expressed
doubts as to the relevance to a debate of public interest of the opinions of a child who had not
witnessed the event in question.
The Court concluded that the appellate courts in this case had only superficially balanced the
question of the applicant’s right to private life and the broadcaster’s right to free expression. They
had not properly taken into account the fact that she had been a minor, failing in their obligation to
protect her right to private life, in violation of Article 8.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
As the applicant did not submit a claim within the time-limit set by the Court, no award was made.
