Protection of personal rights in everyday actions

In the hyper-connected society we live in, there are many occasions where, usually without malicious intent, violations of personal rights (honor, privacy, and self-image) occur while performing seemingly harmless actions, such as sending mass emails with Christmas greetings, putting all recipients in visible copy, which constitutes an invasion of their privacy by sharing their email address with a multitude of strangers.

Recently, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and several Provincial Courts have more precisely delineated the contours of these rights, especially in contexts where they collide with other fundamental rights such as freedom of expression or the right to information.

Regarding the dissemination of facts as a warning to third parties about certain circumstances or behaviors of a person, the Supreme Court, in its ruling 1515/2024, of November 12, upheld the placement of a banner in a school, as well as the publication of messages on Facebook and Instagram, informing of unpaid rent for over four years and the existence of an eviction order, even though the property had not been vacated. The High Court considered that the honor rights of the director and the leasing company were not violated, as it pertained to truthful information and proportionally disseminated, since the right to information prevails over diligence exercise and without vexatious intent.

In the same vein, ruling 1186/2024, of September 24, validated the actions of a property manager who placed signs in stairwells and elevators, warning about a tenant aiming to rent another home in the same development, after being evicted from another apartment for non-payments since the beginning of the rental relationship, and having caused various inconveniences and damages. Therefore, it was rejected that there had been a violation of the rights to honor and privacy, as this action can fit within the realm of the administrator of a community of owners for the sake of neighbor interests, highlighting that no value judgments or offensive or injurious expressions were made, beyond transmitting information that was of interest and truthful.

On the other hand, ruling 258/2023, of May 26, of the Provincial Court of Madrid also did not consider that the honor rights of a property manager were violated when the president of the community of owners called him a “thief,” understanding that there was some basis for this due to reasons to doubt his management and the proper use of community funds, with the right to freedom of expression prevailing.

Regarding the improper use of data and images, ruling 198/2024, of March 15 from the Provincial Court of Ourense condemned a media outlet for publishing, without consent, the photograph of a woman, clearly recognizable, to illustrate a news story about the reopening of terraces after the lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic, considering it an illegitimate invasion of her rights to personal privacy and self-image, as the image was not necessary to illustrate the informational content, and thus not protected by the right to information.

More severe is the situation analyzed by ruling 1166/2025 from the Supreme Court, of July 17, which declared the installation of a camera in the peephole of a private home, overlooking the landing, and recording those who entered or exited the neighbor's dwelling, as unlawful, as it did not pass the proportionality test against the installer’s interests. Thus, it was determined that this action violates the personal and family privacy rights of the plaintiffs and added that there are no guarantees to limit access to these images, allowing the defendants to use them uncontrollably, violating what is provided in article 22-1 of Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on Personal Data Protection and the guarantee of digital rights.

The courts have also sanctioned assaults disguised as alleged jokes, pranks, or outbursts. In this regard, ruling 489/2023, of October 23, from the Provincial Court of Asturias ruled that recording a family conversation in a moment of conflict for the creation of caricatures that provide a derogatory image of those affected, and its subsequent dissemination via WhatsApp, constitutes an intrusion into their rights to honor and privacy.

Similarly, ruling 1724/2023, of December 12, from the Supreme Court found that a referee's honor rights were violated due to insults published against him on Facebook after suspending a child handball match, understanding that it was unsafe for any of the players to compete with non-sport-appropriate glasses. This is because it is considered that it is not merely a criticism of his actions, but rather a disqualification of him in his personal and professional sphere in a disproportionate manner, given the objective meaning of the phrases uttered and the lack of link to his refereeing actions, where he should not have to endure injurious comments either.

These rulings evidence that the protection of personal rights cannot be relegated under the excuse of immediacy nor in the face of the apparent informality of certain acts. Therefore, it is necessary to weigh between fundamental rights repeatedly recalled by the jurisprudence, so that the information must be truthful and the freedom of expression should not be an instrument for defamation. It is fundamental to promote a culture of respect for privacy and dignity, especially in environments where technology and spontaneity can lead to crossing boundaries protected by laws.

Consult the full article published on Elderecho.com here.