The princess and the actor: two important right to privacy rulings – Inforrm

31 January 2012 by

The European Court of Human Rights has announced today that it will deliver two Grand Chamber judgments, in the cases of Axel Springer AG v Germanyand von Hannover v Germany (No.2) on 7 February 2012.  The cases were both heard more than 15 months ago, on 13 October 2010.

We had a post about the hearing at the time (and an earlier preview).Both cases concern the publication in the media of material which is alleged to be private.  The Axel Springercase concerned the publication in “Bild” of an article about a well-known television actor, being arrested for possession of cocaine. The article was illustrated by three pictures of the actor. The German court granted him an injunction to prohibit the publication of the article and the photos. The applicant company did not challenge the judgment concerning the photos.  The newspaper published a second article in July 2005, which reported on the actor being convicted and fined for illegal possession of drugs after he had made a full confession.

The German courts held that the right to protection of X.’s personality rights prevailed over the public’s interest in being informed, even if the truth of the facts related by the daily had not been disputed.  The applicant complained that the injunction preventing it from publishing the articles was a breach of its Article 10 rigths.

In Von Hannover (No. 2) the applicants, Princess Caroline of Monaco and her husband, had sought injunctions against the publication of further photos, showing them during a holiday and taken without their consent, which had appeared in the German magazines Frau im Spiegel and Frau Aktuell between 2002 and 2004.

While the Federal Court of Justice granted Princess Caroline’s claim as regards the publication of two of the photos in dispute, it dismissed her claim as regards another photo which had appeared in February 2002 in Frau im Spiegel. It showed the couple taking a walk during their skiing holiday in St. Moritz and was accompanied by an article reporting, among other issues, on the poor health of Prince Rainier of Monaco.

The courts found that the reigning prince’s poor health was a subject of general interest and that the press had been entitled to report on the manner in which his children reconciled their obligations of family solidarity with the legitimate needs of their private life.  The applicants complained, under Article 8, of the German courts’ refusal to prohibit any further publication of the photos in dispute.

The applications raise serious and difficult issues about the ambit of the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention. The protection accorded to the actor in the Axel Springer case and that sought by the applicants in von Hannover (No.2) go considerably further than that which presently afforded by English law.  Decisions in favour of German government in the first case and the applicants in the second would, therefore, have a very substantial impact on domestic privacy law and would extend the scope of privacy protection.  On the other hand, if the Article 10 arguments were to succeed in each case then this may lead to some modification of privacy law in the direction sought by the media.

We will have a report on the judgment when it is handed down.

This post first appeared on Inforrm’s blog and is reproduced here with permission and thanks.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: