BILD GMBH & CO. KG v. GERMANY JUDGMENT (b) The Government 23. The Government argued that disclosing P.’s identity had not been necessary in order to attain the relevant journalistic goals. Using the unpixelated footage had not lent additional credibility to the applicant company’s coverage of the police intervention or provided any relevant additional information to the public. Furthermore, the domestic courts had correctly pointed out that the first video the applicant company had published had provided the public with an incomplete version of events at the nightclub. The Government further confirmed the Court of Appeal’s legal standpoint that, owing to the nature of the video material, publication of the CCTV footage without P.’s face being pixelated would violate his personality rights regardless of the accompanying coverage. It found that P. could not be expected to constantly monitor whether the applicant company had republished the video material and then initiate a new set of court proceedings if the coverage was slightly different. Lastly, with regard to the severity of the sanction, the Government emphasised that the domestic courts’ decisions had not resulted in a general prohibition on publishing the CCTV footage, but had only ordered that publication without P.’s face being blurred should cease. 2. The third-party intervener’s submissions 24. The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights argued that lawenforcement officers who were involved in alleged malpractice while exercising their official functions in public places should be regarded as “persons acting in a public context” or “newsworthy figures” within the meaning of the Court’s case-law. Since their particular powers were inherently linked to a risk of abuse, the filming of law-enforcement officers acting in their official capacity and the publication of the footage of the alleged malpractice, with images of recognisable officers involved in such actions, constituted a vital element of the system of adequate safeguards against arbitrariness and abuse of force. 3. The Court’s assessment 25. Neither party disputed that the domestic courts’ order that publication of the unedited CCTV footage should cease constituted an interference by the State with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression. The Court further notes that the interference was prescribed by law – namely, by Articles 823 and 1004 of the Civil Code (see paragraphs 15-17 above) – and that it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others. 26. It therefore remains to be determined whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”. 6