Cases

Balan v Moldova

Held

B had possession of the photograph within the meaning of Protocol 1 Art 1. The state’s use of the photograph without B's permission amounted to an interference with B's property rights that was disproportionate to the aims pursued. The Court accepted that the respondent state's issuing of identity cards to its population served an undoubtedly important public interest. However, it went on conclude that such an aim could have been reached in a variety of ways that did not involve a breach of B's rights; a contract could have been concluded with B or another photograph could have been used. Accordingly the use made by the respondent state of B's photograph amounted to a violation of Protocol 1 Art 1 of the Convention. B was entitled to EUR 5,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

Also