The Supreme Court has rejected the appeal presented by Cecosa Hipermercados S.L. against the ruling of the Madrid Court that declared that he had violated the right to privacy of the former president of the Community of Madrid Cristina Cifuentes for failing to comply with her obligation to guard a recording of said person in an Eroski supermarket on May 5, 2011 , a video that was widely disseminated seven years later in the media.
The ruling condemns the hypermarket chain to pay 30,000 euros in compensation to Cifuentes for the damages caused as a result of the violation of his right to privacy.
Cristina Cifuentes filed a lawsuit against Cecosa in which she requested that it be declared that her conduct constituted an illegitimate interference in her fundamental rights to honor, privacy and self-image, and that she be ordered to compensate her in 450,000 euros and to publish the sentence in two national newspapers.
The claims formulated in the lawsuit were based on the failure by the defendant to comply with its obligations, derived from the regulations on the protection of personal data, with respect to the recording to which the plaintiff was subjected in an Eroski establishment on May 5, 2011, of which he was the owner, which was subsequently leaked to the press and was widely disseminated in 2018.
On the date of the recording, Cifuentes was vice president of the Madrid Assembly, and when it was made public, seven years later, she was president of the Community, a position from which she resigned after the video was released.
The Provincial Court of Madrid partially upheld the appeal raised by Cifuentes, and declared that Cecosa had failed to comply with the obligations imposed by the regulations on the protection of personal data with respect to the custody of the recording, setting compensation of 30,000 euros.
The Supreme Court now completely rejects Cecosa’s appeal of cassation which, among other arguments, considered that the Provincial Court made an incorrect weighing of the conflict between the freedoms of expression and information and the plaintiff’s right to privacy, since it was about the disclosure of truthful facts of enormous public interest as they constitute a criminal offense and were committed by a public figure.
In this regard, the TS answers that the appealed sentence runs completely outside the conflict between the freedoms of expression and information and the right to privacy of the plaintiff, “since the appellant’s sentence is based on ‘the breaches incurred by the defendant entity in the custody of the recording made in an establishment of its ownership that is imposed by data protection regulations.
The appellant herself shows – the judges add – that she did not make use of these public freedoms since it was not she who spread the video, but rather a media outlet that is not being sued did so.
Regarding the appellant’s disagreement with the amount of compensation because it was considered disproportionate, the court highlights the great impact that public knowledge of the recording, caused by the defendant’s failure to comply with its custody obligation and subsequent destruction of the recording , had in public opinion, which “clearly shows that the moral damages were very important.” Therefore, it understands that the Court did not arbitrarily establish the amount, which it ratifies.
