The first unexpected victory

“He knew he was being filmed”

On August 18, 2020, Archbishop Isidore filed an application for interim measures against “Google Ireland Ltd” for the deletion of two videos from the “YouTube” platform containing excerpts from his historical testimony.

On May 27, 2022, the Decision was issued. It was an unexpected victory. The first.

I quote the last pages with the reasoning for the dismissal.

However, the aforementioned video, which depicts the applicant’s face and features the aforementioned dialogue (which, it should be noted, is not detailed in the application), leads to the easy inference that, within the scope of this trial, the applicant’s claim regarding the infringement of his personality concerns the disclosure of his face and the fact that, due to the dental problem he was experiencing, he is presented as an unserious person, as he alleges. It is not probable that this infringes the applicant’s personality. Specifically, it is not at all probable that the recording of the said video occurred in a manner that portrays the applicant as someone who does not treat his office with due seriousness.
Nor is it probable that the latter is presented as an unserious person due to his dental problem. Furthermore, it is even less probable that the said journalist was filming the applicant without his consent.
On the contrary, from the latter’s address to the camera and his question to the journalist, “Should we say it on camera?” it appears that the latter knew he was being filmed, contrary to what he alleges in his application.
Based on the above, in the Court’s judgment, there is no legal reason to issue the interim measure of provisional regulation of the situation against the respondent, in its aforementioned capacity, inasmuch as no infringement of the applicant’s personality is probable in this case, and, even more so, the unlawful nature of this through filming without his consent is not probable. Therefore, the application under consideration must be dismissed as substantially unfounded. The court costs of the respondent must be awarded against the applicant due to their loss (Article 176 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

FOR THESE REASONS

Rules in the presence of the parties.
Dismisses the application.
Orders the applicant to pay the court costs of the respondent, which it sets at the amount of three hundred (300) euros.

The full text of the decision here.