issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 072 (2023)
07.03.2023
Judgments of 7 March 2023
The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of nine judgments1:
one Chamber judgment is summarised below;
three separate press releases have been issued for Chamber judgments in the cases of Mamasakhlisi
and Others v. Georgia and Russia (applications nos. 29999/04 and 41424/04), Kogan and Others
v. Russia (no. 54003/20), and Ossewaarde v. Russia (no. 27227/17);
five Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, can
The judgment summarised below is available only in French.
Tüzünataç v. Türkiye (application no. 14852/18)
The applicant, Birsen Berrak Tüzünataç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and lives in
Istanbul (Türkiye).
The case concerns the broadcasting by a television channel of video footage recorded without the
knowledge of the applicant, a well-known actress, in which she and a male actor (Ş.G.), also a public
figure, were shown kissing on a terrace at the applicant’s home.
In 2010 the applicant brought a civil action against the parent company of the television channel,
claiming that she had been filmed without her knowledge, in breach of her right to privacy. In 2013
the Istanbul Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claims, noting that the journalists had filmed
her from the street and had not entered her home covertly. The Court of Cassation dismissed an
appeal on points of law by the applicant, who then lodged an individual application with the
Constitutional Court. In 2017 that court held that there had been no breach of the applicant’s right
to privacy as she had been filmed from the street. It found that the images in question had not
contained any elements liable to cause an unacceptable degree of embarrassment to the persons
concerned and that the applicant had not taken adequate precautions or assumed sufficient
responsibility for protecting her privacy.
Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European
Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains about the broadcasting of the video footage
and maintains that the courts did not respond adequately to the alleged interference with her right
to respect for her private life.
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction:
Request for just satisfaction not made within the set time-limit
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s
delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five
judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,
judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
