All EU countries are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, and have
already incorporated the treaty into their domestic law.
For example, the Human Right Act, 1998, does that for the UK, which reproduces the Convention as Schedule 1 of the Act. The UK, like all EU members, has the right to make derogations and reservations, and has done so, twice in relation to detention without trial in Northern Ireland, and once in relation to rights to education, but not in relation to Article 8 (the one about privacy).
Each country's courts can interpret the Convention according to their own legal traditions, but the Convention and interpretations of it by the European Court of Human Rights have to be followed: s2 of the Human Rights Act, 1998, eg, says
"A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any—
(a)judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights,
(b)opinion of the Commission given in a report adopted under Article 31 of the Convention,
(c)decision of the Commission in connection with Article 26 or 27(2) of the Convention, or
(d)decision of the Committee of Ministers taken under Article 46 of the Convention"
and s3 says "So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights" (there is a lot of delightfully Gilbert and Sullivan-ish stuff about what to do while the government sorts the law out if it is impossible to square existing legislation with the Convention).
That is what happened in the son-of-JK Rowling case, where an English court, fulfilled its obligation to follow ECHR decisions and so "held, for the first time, that the publication of an inoffensive photograph of an everyday activity in the street could amount to an invasion of privacy. This brings English privacy law more closely into line with the position in France" (
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/may/08/privacy.medialaw).
The point is that the law in England only changed with this court decision, in 2008, although the Human Rights Act was passed in 1998, because it was only then that somebody felt strongly enough and, more importantly, had enough money to take the case to court and then to the Court of Appeal after the first judge found for the photographer. There is a handy digest of image rights cases that have gone to the ECHR at
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Own_image_ENG.pdf Not all EU countries are as organised as France and the UK with regard to legislation: many have laws on the books left over from before they incorporated the Convention into their law, some forgot to include the equivalent of s2 of the UK Human Rights Act in their laws incorporating the Convention. So the courts in those countries may not apply Section 8 at all, or they may not apply it correctly. The Wikimedia list is reporting the law as it stands
before the ECHR issues a ruling that a country's courts have failed to enforce Article 8.
Even when the ECHR does issue a decision, the law in a member state does not automatically change. To take one example, Wikimedia says that Greece does not require consent to take or publish photographs, but in 2009 that law was found inconsistent with Article 8 in the case of Reklos & Davourlis v Greece. The Greek parliament
ought to have amended Greek law, if necessary, to take account of that ruling, and even if they don't, the next time such a case arises in Greece the courts
ought to apply the law as set out in the ECHR decision, but there is no way to force them to do either except for the ECHR to keep finding against them on appeal.
