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.

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.




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.


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: