Axel Springer and Von Hannover: Grand Chamber victory for media – Inforrm

7 February 2012 by

The media were successful in both the judgments handed down this morning by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.  The judgments made it clear that the right to privacy has to be carefully balanced against contribution which a publication makes to a debate of general interest.  In both cases, taking account of the nature of the individuals involved and the publications the right to freedom of expression prevailed over the right to privacy. 

The judgments demonstrate the need for a careful balancing exercise in privacy cases.   Both cases involved “popular journalism” and show that,  even in this area, privacy is not a “trump card”.  The judgments will be welcomed by the media as showing that the Court of Human Rights remains sensitive to the need to protect its freedom of expression.

The case of Axel Springer v Germany (App No 39954/08) concerned the publication of articles about the arrest and conviction of a well known television actor for the possession of drugs.  The domestic courts held that the actor’s right to protection his personality rights prevailed over the public’s interest in being informed, even if the truth of the facts had not been disputed.  It granted an injunciton against the newspaper which claimed that there was a violation of its right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Grand Chamber (by a majority of 12:5) held that there was a violation.  It looked at six  factors in considering whether the sanctions imposed by the domestic court had been justified under Article 10(2): the contribution of the article to a debate of general interest, how well known the actor was, his prior conduct in relation to the media, the method of obtaining the information and its veracity, the content form and consequences of the articles and the severity of the sanctions.  There was a degree of public interest, the actor was well known and had actively sought the limelight and the information had been published only after disclosure by the prosecuting authorities.  The publication of the article had not had serious consequences for the actor.  The sanctions, although not severe, were capable of having a chilling effect.

In the circumstances, the Grand Chamber held that the grounds advanced by the Goverment were not sufficient to establish that the interference with the newspapers’ rights was “necessary in a democratic society”.  There was, therefore, a violation of Article 10.

The second case, Von Hannover v Germany (No.2) (App Nos. 40660/08 ; 60641/08) concerned the publication of Prince Caroline of Monaco and her husband 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.   Her claim against the magazine was dismissed and she claimed this was a breach of the positive obligation under Article 8 to protect her privacy.

The Grand Chamber noted the the photographs had not been taken in “unfavourable circumstances” and were not of themselves offensive.  It held that the national courts had carefully balanced the rights of the published companies to freedom of expression against the right of the applicants to respect for their private life, considering whether the accompanying articles contributed to a debate of general interest.   In all the circumstances, having regard to the national margin of appreciation, it held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8.

These are both important cases for their analyses of the law concerning privacy and freedom of expression and we will publish full case comments in due course.

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

1 comment;

  1. alrich says:

    A quick and dirty analysis of these cases is here: taking the view that these cases constitute a very modest victory for the press – and one unlikely to have much effect in Britain since the ECtHR urges states and their courts to continue developing privacy law.

Comments are closed.

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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.

%d bloggers like this: