Well, that means that vacation shots taken by people going through Europe and published by us on the web might be subject to lawsuit!
In theory, yes. In practice, not very likely.
'Reasonable interest' can e.g. be interpreted as respect for 'moral values' or 'personal living space' (also covered by art. 8, European Treaty for Human Rights), and one can think about hidden cameras spying on people when they don't expect it, or even when on reality TV.
It all depends a bit on the type and kind of 'intimacy' that is imaged. A case was ruled in her favor by a lady caught kissing her (at that time) boyfriend in a park.
Also, as a general High Court rule/principle, it is reasonable to resist unauthorized commercial exploitation of one's portrait for advertising. It might create an unwanted association with the product/service offered and the portrayed individual.
Another example is a portrait of a defendant in a court of law. Although the session is public, it may serve a reasonable interest to not have one's portrait in public media and associated with something one is not (yet) found to be guilty of. The common journalistic approach is to publish a drawing of the court session, with the defendant(s) seen from behind, and only the initials are used in the caption and text.
Another reasonable interest is to resist commercial exploitation of a portrait, without financial compensation. When the portrait is of monetary value for the user of it, it makes sense to share some of the benefit. It also helps to preserve the exclusivity rights of the portrayed person.
So, in general, a portrait made in good taste without potentially offending associations, and without invading a person's privacy, won't pose an issue.
As soon as portraits become a freak show (obese/disabled/drunk/homeless/etc. people, victims of accidents, etc.), one should become weary of consequences.
Important to note is that a portrait is defined as a depiction of (a) person(s) with a recognisable face (includes cartoons and such).
Is there any evidence that the courts would apply these rules today?
Yes, but it usually constitutes of obvious cases of e.g. publication of secret images of nu__ (abbrev unclothed) recreation, or of people (incorrectly) being associated with immoral or criminal behavior, or commercial exploitation of portraits, or people being associated (by caption or context) with events/behavior they didn't participate in.
Bart