The confirmed sentence 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.
He Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal presented by Cecosa HypermarketsSL against the ruling of the Madrid Court that declared that the right to privacy of the former president of the Community of Madrid had been violated Cristina Cifuentes for failing to comply with his 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 confirmed sentence condemns the hypermarket chain to pay 30,000 euros compensation to Cifuentes for the damages caused as a result of the violation of his right to privacy.
The former Madrid president 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 she 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 became public, seven years later, she was president. of the Community, a position from which he 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 on him by the regulations on protection of personal data regarding the custody of the recording, establishing compensation of 30,000 euros.
Now, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court completely rejects Cecosa’s appeal for cassation which, among other arguments, considered that the Provincial Court carried out an incorrect weighing of the conflict between the freedoms of expression and information and the right to privacy of the plaintiff, since it involved the disclosure of truthful facts of enormous public interest as they constituted 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 conviction is based on the failures incurred by the defendant entity in the custody of the recording made in an establishment of its ownership that is imposed on it by data protection regulations.
The appellant herself shows – the magistrates add – that she did not make use of these public liberties because 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, he understands that the Court did not arbitrarily establish the amount, which he ratifies.