After a preliminary investigation by the judicial police, including for organized gang theft and money laundering, Mr. X is charged. He seeks the annulment of certain investigative acts and procedural documents, including the taking of photographs of his person at his place of residence by the investigators.

In order to justify his application for annulment, Mr. X claims an invasion of his privacy because the investigators photographed him without prior authorization from the judge while he was in a private place corresponding to his place of life.

According to him, the parking lot of a shop, originally private and disused, which serves as a place of life for a group of the Traveler community and on which his own caravan is located, is a private place.

In rejecting Mr. X’s application, the Investigative Chamber of the Court of Appeal held that:

• the parking lot of a shop, intended to serve customers, cannot be considered as a private place, unlike caravans, whose interior had not been photographed;

• Mr. X did not have any right to the space in question or any installation authorization granted on a special and exclusive basis, so that the capture of his image which was made there did not have to be authorized by a magistrate.

Mr. X then took his case to the Court of Cassation.

Did the taking of photographs by the investigators at that place require prior authorization by the judge with regard to the right to respect for his privacy?

Service-Public.fr is answering you :

In its decision of 25 June 2024, the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the investigating chamber of the Court of Appeal and rejected Mr. X’s application.

It considers that:

• the disused parking lot of a former shop where Mr. X was standing when he took photographs of himself, being accessible to all, constitutes a public place, including the spaces for movement between the caravans;

• the taking of non-permanent and systematic photographs of a person standing in a public place cannot constitute interference with the exercise of the right to privacy within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Consequently, the fact that the investigators took one-off photographs of Mr. X while he was in a public place where he lived did not require the prior authorization of a magistrate and did not therefore infringe on his privacy.