BILD GMBH & CO. KG v. GERMANY JUDGMENT M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, nos. 60798/10 and 65599/10, § 91, 28 June 2018, and the cases cited therein). 29. The concept of private life includes elements relating to a person’s right to his or her image, and the publication of a photograph falls within the scope of private life. A person’s image constitutes one of the chief attributes of his or her personality, as it reveals the person’s unique characteristics and distinguishes the person from his or her peers. The right of each person to the protection of his or her image is thus one of the essential components of personal development and presupposes the right to control the use of that image. Whilst in most cases the right to control such use involves the possibility for an individual to refuse publication of his or her image, it also covers the individual’s right to object to the recording, conservation and reproduction of the image by another person (see, for instance, López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13, § 89, 17 October 2019, with further references). 30. In assessing the relevance and sufficiency of the national courts’ findings, the Court, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, takes into account the extent to which those courts balanced the conflicting rights involved in the case, in the light of the Court’s established case-law in the relevant area. The Court emphasises that the quality of the judicial examination regarding the necessity of the measure is of particular importance in the context of assessing the proportionality under Article 10 of the Convention. Thus, the absence of an effective judicial review may justify a finding of a violation of Article 10 (see Pretorian v. Romania, no. 45014/16, § 60, 24 May 2022, with further references). (b) Application of these principles to the present case (i) Contribution of the publications to a debate of public interest 31. The Court notes that the Regional Court found that the CCTV footage portrayed an aspect of contemporary society and expressly acknowledged the importance of the news media in covering the use of force by police officers (see paragraph 11 above). It recognised that the use of force by State agents was inherently a matter of public interest (see paragraph 11 above). The Court of Appeal confirmed that finding, stating that the footage portrayed an aspect of contemporary society (see paragraph 12 above). In balancing the competing interests regarding the recognisability of P. in the video-footage, the Regional Court noted that the public interest primarily concerned the actions of the police as an institution and not P. as an individual (see paragraph 11 above). Taking into account that the court’s decision related specifically to the blurring of P.’s face (compare Bremner v. Turkey, no. 37428/06, §§ 80-81, 13 October 2015) and that he had not been alleged to have abused his powers or otherwise to have engaged in illegal misconduct, the Court accepts the Regional Court’s findings in this respect. 8