## Facts

- In 2002, a 14-year-old girl discovered a running video camera hidden in the family bathroom, aimed at the area where she undressed.
- The camera had been placed by her stepfather, who attempted to film her naked without her knowledge.
- The applicant’s mother destroyed the tape and reported the incident to police.
- The stepfather was prosecuted for sexual molestation; a trial court convicted him and awarded damages, but an appellate court acquitted him.
- The appellate court held that filming a person without their knowledge was not itself a criminal offense under the applicable sexual molestation provision because it required intent that the victim become aware of the act; it noted attempted child pornography was only a theoretical possibility and was not charged.
- The applicant’s civil claim for damages, joined to the criminal case and premised on the alleged offense, failed after the acquittal; further appeal was denied.
- The applicant complained that the state failed to provide adequate legal protection and effective remedies for a serious interference with her private life.

## Issues

1. Whether the state complied with its positive obligations under Article 8 to provide an adequate legal framework protecting a minor from covert filming of nudity in the home.
2. Whether available criminal-law provisions and civil remedies offered effective protection and redress in practice.
3. Whether a separate examination under Article 13 was required given the Article 8 findings.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held that Sweden violated Article 8 (right to respect for private life).
- The Court found it unnecessary to examine Article 13 separately.
- The Court awarded just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses.

## Legal Principles

- Article 8 protects private life and personal integrity, including against sexual or sexually motivated intrusions, with heightened concern where the victim is a child.
- States have positive obligations to maintain and apply a legal framework that provides practical and effective protection against serious interferences with private life.
- In cases involving serious interference with sexual or bodily integrity, Article 8 may require the availability of criminal-law remedies; purely theoretical criminal liability or limited civil avenues may be insufficient.
- The assessment focuses on whether substantive law and remedies adequately cover the conduct, not only on whether an investigation lacked “significant flaws.”
- While states have a margin of appreciation in choosing protective measures, that discretion is reduced where a child’s integrity and core aspects of private life are implicated.

## Conclusion

Sweden breached Article 8 because, at the time of the events, its criminal law did not effectively cover covert filming of a minor’s nudity in the home and the civil avenues identified did not provide sufficient protection or redress in practice.


Söderman v. Swed., App. No. 5786/08, Eur. Ct. H.R. (Grand Chamber) (2013)