Court case II Ips 23/2020 – Court Ruling (Slovenia, 2020)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A Slovenian court ruled that a former candidate for a judge position at the European Court of Human Rights remains a public figure, affecting their privacy rights. The case centered on whether past public figures can regain privacy over time. The court decided that once someone is a public figure, they remain of public interest regarding the event that made them known.
What happened
A court decided that a former candidate for a judge position remains a public figure, affecting their privacy rights.
Who was affected
A former candidate for a judge position at the European Court of Human Rights who was previously involved in a publicized legal case.
What the authority found
The court held that the individual remains a public figure regarding the event that increased public interest, impacting their privacy expectations.
Why this matters
This case highlights the ongoing privacy challenges for individuals who have been public figures. It suggests that once someone is in the public eye, their privacy rights may remain limited concerning past events, which is important for media outlets and individuals concerned about privacy.
GDPR Articles Cited
The plaintiff was a former Candidate for a position as a Judge at the European Court of Human Rights in 2014. During this process the defendant (a national media house) published articles on its website stating that the plaintiff had been sentenced to one year and six months imprisonment for domestic violence. The plaintiff (applicant) alleged a violation of the right to privacy for maintaining sensitive personal data on the defendant's website even after the call for judges of the European Court of Human Rights had been closed and the articles were no longer relevant. The Court of first Instance has balanced in it´s decision the collision of protected rights - the plaintiff´s personality rights and the right to privacy on the one side, and the defendant´s freedom of expression, on the other. The Court of Appeal (Višje sodišče v Mariboru) upheld the findings of the Court of First Instance. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a revision (partial renewal of a res judicata judgement) in the part of the decision of the court of appeals regarding the question if a person which was in the past a “relative public figure” loses its status as a “relative public figure” after certain time passes and there is no more interest of the public for that person. The Court held, that a former Candidate for the position of a Judge at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is a “relative public person” or “relative public figure”. When someone becomes a “relative public person”, his field of expected privacy, becomes smaller - in inverse proportion, the more public the function, the more restrictive its privacy rights. The person will be forever in a way a person of public interest regarding the event which made the public interest about him increase. Another question is whether he is entitled to general anonymity and protection of personal data after the event. The answer to this question is not straightforward and depends on the circumstances of each case, in particular the import
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case II Ips 23/2020 in SI
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case II Ips 23/2020 - Slovenia (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: