Kiss on the terrace. The Latest Trends in the Interpretation of the Right to Privacy in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, Reflecting on the Turkish Legal Developments


Did broadcasting private, intimate moments of a celebrity by a television channel exceed the limits of press freedom and had
infringed the applicant’s right to respect for her private life if the applicant did not present any evidence that broadcasting the images
would have had any negative effect on her mental state, her professional life, and her reputation? In 2023 along what principles can the authorities find a fair balance between freedom of the press and the right to respect for the private life? How does the court evaluate the circumstances in which the images of the person concerned had been filmed and her behavior at the time they were taken in 2023? Where are the boundaries of a public person’s private life and professional activity noting that how a celebrity and to what extent he/she had to be sufficiently attentive to protect his/her privacy and on the other hand, what elements needed to be proven in a dispute to underpin the unacceptable feeling of embarrassment. Through the case law of the European Court of Human Rights we can find the most important landmarks of the legal development to find the balance between the competing interests. I summarize the most important milestones of legal development1 through the Tüzünatac v. Turkey case of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Birsen has emerged victorious in a case heard by the ECHR, which condemned Turkey for failing to protect her private life. The ECHR ruled that despite their celebrity status, an individual’s love life is considered strictly private, and that the video in question appeared to serve only the purpose of satisfying the curiosity of a particular audience.


  1. AFFAIRE TÜZÜNATAÇ c. TÜRKİYE (Requête no 14852/18){%22itemid%22:[%22001-223366%22]}
  2. Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999‑III,[2],%22itemid%22:[%22002-6396%22]%7D
  3. Constitution of the Republic of Turkey. The official translation published by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, Department of Laws and Resolutions, May 2019
  4. Constitutional Justice in Asia Constitutional Justice In Asia. “Respect for Private and Family Life” “Principles of Fair Trial” Editors: Murat AZAKLI-Dr. Mücahit AYDIN-Enise ÖZDEMİR, 4th Summer School of the Association of Asian Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions 2nd Summer2-9 October 2016 Asian Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions, Ankara 2018.
  5. Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 83, ECHR 2015.[%22001-158861%22]%7D
  6. Szűcs Lászlóné Dr. Siska Katalin: Az alapjogok korlátai és a közérdek sajátos értékelésének gyakorlata Törökországban. 2023.09.22. Kalliopé Kiadó. 9.
  7. Éditions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, §§ 47 and 53, ECHR 2004-IV and Hachette Filipacchi Associés, cited above, §§ 46-49.
  8. Egeland and Hanseid v. Norway, no. 34438/04, § 61, April 16, 2009.{%22itemid%22:[%22001-92246%22]}
  9. European Court of Human Rights: Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. Updated on 31 August 2022.
  10. George Letsas: The ECHR as a Living Instrument: Its Meaning and its Legitimacy.University College London, March 14, 2012.


  1. Hájovský v. Slovakia, no. 7796/16, § 31, July 1, 2021.[%22002-13325%22]%7D
  2. Jersild v. Denmark, September 23, 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298, and Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no. 69698/01, § 146, ECHR 2007‑V.{%22itemid%22:[%22001-83870%22]}
  3. Law Nr. 5237 Criminal Code of Turkey.
  4. López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13, § 89, October 17, 2019.
  5. Mater v. Turkey, no. 54997/08, § 55, July 16, 2013.
  6. Minelli v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 14991/02, June 14, 2005.
  7. Mosley v. United Kingdom, no. 48009/08, § 131, May 10, 2011.[%22001-104712%22]%7D
  8. Palomo Sánchez and others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, § 57, ECHR 2011.{%22itemid%22:[%22001-106178%22]}
  9. Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece, no. 1234/05, § 42, January 15, 2009, and Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS), cited above, § 52.{%22itemid%22:[%22001-90617%22]}
  10. Robert C. Post: Three Concepts of Privacy. The Georgetown Law Journal. Vol:89:2087.
  11. Ruusunen v. Finland, no. 73579/10, §§ 49-50, 14 January 2014.[%22001-139991%22]%7D,
  12. Siska, Katalin: A női jogok alakulásának áttekintése a Török Köztársaság megalakulásától napjainkig JOG ÁLLAM POLITIKA: JOG- ÉS POLITIKATUDOMÁNYI FOLYÓIRAT 2 pp. 39-54., 16 p. (2017)
  13. Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 95, ECHR 2003-IX.[%22001-61262%22]%7D
  14. Société Prisma Presse v. France (dec.), no. 66910/01, July 1, 2003, Société Prisma Presse v. France (dec.), no. 71612/01, July 1, 2003,{%22itemid%22:[%22002-4733%22]}
  15. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Privacy and Information Technology. Summer 2020 Edition.
  16. Szűcs, Lászlóné Siska Katalin-Szemesi, Sándor A nemzetközi jog története, Debrecen, Magyarország: Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadó (2006)
  17. Szűcs, Lászlóné Siska Katalin: A nemzetközi jog alapkérdései a nemzetközi kapcsolatok elméletének és történetének viszonylatában: tankönyv közigazgatási menedzsereknek. Debrecen, Magyarország: Debreceni Egyetemi Kiadó (2010), 255.
  18. Szűcs, Lászlóné Siska Katalin: Az emberi jogok az arab világban, Debrecen, Magyarország: Debreceni Egyetemi Kiadó (2012), 164 p., ISBN: 9789633181898, Szakkönyv (Könyv) | Tudományos [2227930] [Admin láttamozott]
  19. Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 97, February 7, 2012.[%22001-109029%22]%7D