The Supreme Court disagrees in Jorge Javier’s lawsuit against the media that published photos of him drunk in a nightclub. Supreme Court Civil Chamber He rejected the presenter’s objection on this issueAccording to the Informalia portal.
In its decision dated October 16, the said court said, “The freedom of information of the appellant media must prevail over the right to privacy and the appellant’s own image in accordance with the constitutional and jurisprudential doctrine,” and added: “The information disseminated is accurate and refers to facts of public interestBoth because the issue resonates with the public and is notorious, and because it is newsworthy because the issue it is reported on is in the public interest.
The judges in charge of this case considered that it was not illegal to publish these images of Jorge Javier Vázquez because “the state the appellant was in after he had a stroke and declared that he was unconscious and would comply with the rules” It aroused an informative expectation and interest in how he would proceed and how his ordinary life would develop.”
“(The information) cannot be considered to fall within the protected scope of his privacy, as it refers to aspects of his private life that he discloses of his own free will, obliging him to endure monitoring and criticism of this information.” According to the media in question states the sentence. “Images may be disseminated without your permissionThe decision states that since the information is of public interest and general interest, the exception to the Civil Protection Law on the Right to Dignity applies.
“In particular, the right to own one’s own image shall not be subject to any capture thereof in the case of persons holding a public office or who are notorious or practicing the profession of public projection, and where the image is captured at or during a public event, In the decision stating “will not prevent the reproduction or publication in public places”, the judges once again emphasize that the collected facts are of public interest: “The appellant voluntarily lifted the veil of privacy by declaring the suffering of a person. ictus“.
The judges also ruled that Jorge Javier “He has not taken any precautions to avoid the curiosity of others or to protect his image from any interference or to mark a clear area of privacy.“.
The decision of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, which no longer has an appeal, not only rejects the 9,000 euros he requested from two media outlets as civil liability for moral damage; but imposes the costs produced by this resource.