BILD GMBH & CO. KG v. GERMANY JUDGMENT THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 20. The applicant company complained that the injunction to cease publication of the CCTV footage without P.’s face being pixelated had violated its freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. ... 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society ... for the protection of the reputation or rights of others ... or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” A. Admissibility 21. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The parties’ submissions (a) The applicant company 22. The applicant company rejected the domestic courts’ argument that showing P.’s likeness had not been necessary in order to inform the public. It argued that the way in which the CCTV footage had been published concerned an editorial choice which fell to itself. It further criticised the Court of Appeal’s position (see paragraph 13 above) that critical coverage of the police intervention required pixelating P.’s face owing to the negative impact it might have on his reputation, whereas positive coverage meant that the video-footage only depicted an everyday occurrence and could only be published with P.’s consent. In the applicant company’s view, this meant that any publication showing photographs of police officers in the performance of their duties risked being subject to a ban. The courts had thus in a general manner given precedence to the police officers’ personality rights over the right to freedom of expression of the press and the public’s right to be informed. Lastly, the applicant company stressed that while P. had been identifiable on the basis of the CCTV footage, his identity had never been divulged to the public. 5