CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 10 novembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sDAF6EE49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4667C756 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sE9B40630 { width:19.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB906F14A { width:204.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDC216F85 { width:219.49pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA0FA2465 { width:108.76pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF66B8D08 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s84CD474B { width:16.77pt; display:inline-block } .sEAAA7F94 { width:165.16pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .sF0E5D02B { width:186.18pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }         GRAND CHAMBER               CASE OF COUDERC AND HACHETTE FILIPACCHI ASSOCIÉS v.   FRANCE   (Application no. 40454/07)               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   10 November 2015           This judgment is final.   In the case of Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Dean Spielmann, President ,   Josep Casadevall,   Işıl Karakaş,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Ledi Bianku,   Julia Laffranque,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Erik Møse,   Helen Keller,   André Potocki,   Aleš Pejchal   Johannes Silvis,   Valeriu Griţco,   Robert Spano,   Branko Lubarda, judges , and Søren Prebensen, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 15 April 2015 and 19 October 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 40454/07) against the French Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Ms Anne-Marie Couderc, a French national, and Hachette Filipacchi Associés, a company incorporated under French law (“the applicants”), on 24   August 2007. 2.     The applicants were represented by Ms M.-C. de Percin, of the Paris Bar. The French Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Co ‑ Agent, Mr G. de Bergues, Deputy Director of Legal Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development. 3.     The applicants alleged that there had been an unjustified breach of their right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the Convention). 4.     The application was allocated to the Fifth Section of the Court (Rule   52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 13 May 2014, a Chamber of that Section composed of Mark Villiger, Angelika Nußberger, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Ann Power-Forde, André Potocki, Paul Lemmens and Helena Jäderblom, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, declared the application admissible and delivered a judgment. On 11 September 2014 the Government requested, in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. On 13 October 2014 a panel of the Grand Chamber granted that request. 5.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. 6.     The applicants and the Government each filed further observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). In addition, third-party comments were received from the Government of Monaco and from the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Media Legal Defence Initiative, which had been given leave by the President of the Grand Chamber to take part in the proceedings (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3). 7.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 15 April 2015 (Rule 59 § 3).   There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Mr   G. de Bergues Deputy Director of Legal Affairs   at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International   Development,   Co-Agent , Ms   E. Jung , Ms   P. Rouault-Chalier , Ms   C. Fabre , Ms   T. Jewcsuk,   Advisers ; (b)     for the applicants Ms   M.-C. de Percin , of the Paris Bar,   Counsel .   The Court heard addresses by Ms de Percin and Mr de Bergues. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 8.     The applicants are the publication director and the publishing company, respectively, of the weekly magazine Paris Match . Ms Anne-Marie Couderc was born in 1950 and lives in Levallois-Perret. The company Hachette Filipacchi Associés has its registered office in Levallois-Perret. A.     Factual background to the case 9.     On 3 May 2005 the British newspaper the Daily Mail published an article headlined “Is this boy the heir to Monaco?”, describing the disclosures by a woman, Ms Coste, who claimed that her son’s father was Albert Grimaldi, who had become reigning prince of Monaco (“the Prince”) following the death of his father on 6 April 2005. The article mentioned a forthcoming publication in Paris Match , and set out its core elements. It was accompanied by three photographs, one of which showed the Prince holding the child in his arms and was captioned “His successor to the throne? Prince Albert with Alexandre”. 10.     On the same day, having been informed that an article was about to appear in Paris Match , Prince Albert served notice on the applicants to refrain from publishing it. 11.     On 4 May 2005 the German weekly magazine Bunte published the interview with Ms Coste. The front cover of the magazine was headlined “ Prinz Albert ist der Vater meines Kindes ” (“Prince Albert is the father of my child”). It was illustrated by two photographs of the Prince: in one of them he was pictured alongside Ms Coste, and in the other he held the child in his arms. 12.     On the same day various Internet sites relayed the news. In France, information from the forthcoming Paris Match article was included in an article on the RTL radio station’s Internet site entitled “ Le prince Albert   II aurait un fils, silence au Rocher ” (“Prince Albert II alleged to have a son, no comment from Monaco”). For its part, the LCI channel published an article headlined “ Albert   : la rumeur d’un fils ” (“Albert: rumours about a son”) on its Internet site. The news also appeared on the Internet site of the MEDEF (French Business Confederation), as follows: “ L’enfant caché du prince Albert de Monaco   : selon certains journaux britanniques et allemands, Albert de Monaco serait le papa d’un petit garçon de 19   mois ” (“Prince Albert of Monaco’s secret son: according to certain British and German newspapers, Albert of Monaco is the father of a 19-month-old boy”). 13.     On 5 May 2005, in spite of the Prince’s notice to refrain, the weekly magazine Paris Match published an article in its edition no. 2920, referred to on the magazine’s front cover under the headline “Albert of Monaco: Alexandre, the secret child” (“ Albert de Monaco: Alexandre, l’enfant secret ”), and illustrated by a small photograph showing the Prince with the child in his arms. The article, published on pages 50 to 59 of the magazine, consisted of an interview with Ms Coste, who replied to questions put by a journalist and stated that the father of her son Alexandre, born on 24 August 2003, was the Prince. In particular, the interview described the circumstances in which Ms   Coste had met the Prince, their intimate relationship, their feelings, and the manner in which the Prince had reacted to the news of Ms Coste’s pregnancy and had behaved towards the child at his birth and subsequently. 14.     The relevant passages of this interview were the following. “ Paris Match (P.M.): When did you meet Albert of Monaco? Nicole Coste (N.C.): Eight years ago, on a Nice to Paris flight ... Before landing he asked for my telephone number. Two weeks later I had a message on my mobile ...   ... He wanted to invite me to Monaco ... I went there the following weekend ... We spent a very tender night next to each other, it was very romantic! After that weekend he called me to say that he had had a very pleasant time and that he wanted to see me again. ... As the months went by, I fell very much in love. I spent weekends in Monaco. He took me everywhere with him when he didn’t have official duties ... ... I had the impression that something was happening. He didn’t speak about his feelings, but I heard his heart beating. There are signs that can’t be mistaken when you’re in someone’s arms ... He didn’t say anything to me and I didn’t ask him anything. But he had tender looks and gestures towards me, even in public, and even in front of other young women. I think that he appreciated my affection. He told his friends that I was very very loving, and that he liked my maternal side. For my part, I found him touching. P.M.     Did you meet up often? N.C.     For the first five years I went to Monaco about once a month ... Sometimes he took me along to official events, such as the World Music Awards or tennis tournaments ... P.M.     Did you ever meet his father, Prince Rainier? N.C.     Yes. At a dinner with about twenty guests; Albert told me that we couldn’t go along together, since his father [would be] there. In the afternoon, he indirectly made me his loveliest declaration of love, by saying to a friend in front of everyone ‘Take good care of Nicole. I am very fond of her.’ And he kissed me ... P.M.     What did he tell you about his talk with his father? N.C.     We spoke about it the next day. I found him strange. I became worried. ‘I’ve been thinking’, he said. ‘I believe it’s better if we stay friends.’ P.M.     How did you react? N.C.     ... I was crying. I telephoned him to find out if it was really over. ‘If you were in my situation, what would you do?’ He answered ‘I would wait. Not for long, but I would wait ...” ... P.M.     One has the feeling that Albert’s discussion with his father was a turning point in your relationship. N.C.     It’s true, the relationship deteriorated after that. At the same time, however, he seemed to be afraid of taking a decision; he hesitated, taking one step forward and two steps back ... ... Albert is not someone who expresses his feelings or who argues. He has a good sense of humour. I had the impression that he still had feelings. We saw each other with more or less the same frequency, but for less time, one day instead of three. I had the impression that he was afraid of becoming too attached. In December 2002 I wanted us to celebrate my ... birthday together. He suggested that I come to Monaco ... we went [out] for a drink. There were lots of young women coming up to him, and I let him know that I wasn’t happy about that. On returning to the flat, we became lovers again, something that I didn’t want that night. The evening had annoyed me. P.M.     Was it then that you became pregnant? N.C.     Yes. Neither he nor I had planned it. I was taking precautions ...When I saw Albert on 11 December I had sore breasts. I said to him ‘If I’m pregnant, what are we going to do?’ He replied ‘If you’re pregnant, you must keep it’. He said it from the heart. He immediately began thinking of boys’ names, and I was coming up with girls’ names, since I already had two boys. He said ‘I’m trying to think of boys’ names – that’s all you know how to make!” ... ... Shortly afterwards, I had a positive pregnancy test ... I wanted him to take a decision very quickly ... I was well aware of what a child represented for Albert, given his position. In my opinion, it was for him to decide ... He said to me ‘Keep it. I’ll look after things. You won’t lack for anything. I don’t promise to marry you, but keep him and don’t worry: I’ll bring him into the family little by little. I’d like us to keep the news to ourselves for the moment. The only person I must tell is my adviser and childhood friend, whom you know well.’ P.M.     Did he contact you for news   during your pregnancy? N.C.     From time to time. He spoke to me very kindly. Then one day he came to see me in Paris with his adviser ... I was three months’ pregnant. He seemed to have changed his mind, but as far as I was concerned it was too late. The adviser said to me ‘Do you realise that if it’s a boy, they’ll use that to prevent Albert acceding to the throne, and the child will be able to claim the throne’. I was surprised that he was going into things that were only details for me. I wasn’t even thinking about these questions ... it is clear to me that a child born outside marriage cannot accede to the throne. P.M.     What happened next? N.C.     I learned that I was expecting a boy. I was very worried ... I asked him if it would make things difficult if it was a boy ... ‘No, no more than if it were a girl.’ He put his hand on my stomach and we discussed names again ... ... When I was five-and-a-half months’ pregnant, I called him. He didn’t behave the way he usually did with me, I understood that something had happened and that he wanted to end the relationship. He said ‘I’ve thought it through. I’ve asked for advice. The child is impossible’. ... I went to see a lawyer, who alerted Albert’s lawyer. Albert called me immediately, and was very annoyed: ‘You’ve trapped me...’ He spoke to me as though he had been brainwashed. I was eight months’ pregnant, and had become pregnant six years after our first meeting. I would have had multiple opportunities to become pregnant. P.M.     How was the birth? N.C.     24 August 2003 is not my happiest memory. I was very alone. On the day I left hospital ... I was visited by a French laboratory, approved by the Swiss Forensic Institute, for a DNA swab from my son. That was organised by his adviser. ... My two older children still didn’t know who their little brother’s father was ... Alexandre was sleeping in my bedroom, in a crib ... He suffered from asthma and was hospitalised for six weeks ... I had to deal with this alone, with no one to confide in. ... P.M.     When did he see Alexandre for the first time? N.C.     Two and a half months after his birth ... the most important thing for me was that Alexandre be recognised. It was out of the question that my child would not have a father. That is how I explained it to them. For me, non-recognition would have been the only basis for taking things to court. It was up to Albert to organise things so that this little baby had a more or less normal life, even if, at the very beginning, it had been necessary to hide him. But I didn’t want him to grow up like Mazarine, for example. I thought only about that, and not for a second about the fact that he represented a potential heir. Meanwhile, Albert was paying me a sum every three months that I still receive. P.M.     What happened subsequently? N.C.     As I didn’t really trust my lawyer any longer, I contacted another one, to whom I explained that the only thing that counted was that Albert recognise his son. In my opinion, non-recognition of a child amounts to denying him his roots ... ... P.M.     Did Albert realise how important it was for you that he recognise this child? N.C.     Ultimately, yes, to my great joy: on 15 December 2003 he arranged to meet me at a notary’s office, with his adviser ... P.M.     What happened during the meeting at the notary’s office? N.C.     Albert signed the deed of recognition. He did it out of respect for me, while giving instructions that this deed was not to be transcribed in the official register until after his father’s death. P.M.     Do you have a copy of this deed of recognition? N.C.     I wasn’t given any papers, I only have the registration number of the deed. I asked the notary several times for a certificate stating that he had a document concerning my son. I was told ‘Later’. After Rainier’s funeral I contacted the notary again, asking that Albert’s undertaking be upheld, and that the official recognition of our son’s paternity be entered in the register of births and deaths. Again, the notary told me that it could wait ... I again asked for a copy of the deed. He refused ... P.M.     What about your flat? Did you finally move? N.C.     ... I found a house in April 2004, and work is currently being carried out on it. P.M.     To whom does it belong? N.C.     To a property investment company (an SCI). 50% of the shares are in Alexandre’s name ... P.M.     What contact have you had with Albert since seeing him at the notary’s office to sign the deed recognising your son? N.C.     I wanted him to see his son regularly, and also to call for news of him. He has done that ... During one of his visits, I said ‘Just because we’ve had a child, that doesn’t mean that everything has to end between us’. He replied ‘For the moment, I prefer that we end things, because if we continue we’ll end up with a second child!’ ... P.M.     Why have you decided to speak out? N.C.     I’ve already given you some reasons. I want Alexandre to grow up normally, with a father. I want the lies to stop. For my part, I’m fed up with lying, hiding and passing for the mistress of his friends. On account of this silence, I no longer have an identity and I live almost like an outlaw. I’m afraid for my son’s psychological health. I should like to have him baptised as soon as possible, with a correctly drawn up birth certificate. In addition, I understand that there are rumours going around about this child, and I want the truth to be re-established, so that his two older brothers have a dignified image of their mother. ...” 15.     This interview was illustrated by five photographs of the Prince with the child and three of the Prince with Ms Coste. In particular, a double-page spread (pages 50 and 51) consisted in a photograph of the Prince holding the child in his arms, headlined “Alexandre ‘is Albert’s son’ says his mother”, followed by this text: “A little boy who knows how to say only two words: daddy and mummy. A little boy who does not seem troubled by the huge gulf between the two cultures from which he comes. His name is Alexandre, a conqueror’s name, an emperor’s name. He was born in Paris on 24 August 2003. His mother asks that he does not grow up clandestinely, ‘like Mazarine’. For that reason, she is now disclosing his existence, which poses no threat to any republic or any dynasty. Because in Togo, the country of his maternal family, all children, whether or not they are born to lawfully married couples, are entitled to an official father. For the moment, the little boy with black curls isn’t interested in knowing whether he is a prince or not. His mother just has to lean towards him and he is happy. There’s already a king in the house... him.” The photograph was also accompanied by the following captions: “The 47-year-old new sovereign of Monaco had not been known to have any long-term relationship. Today Nicole Coste, an air hostess whom he met eight years ago, claims that they have had a son.” “He’s never been seen smiling like this before: Prince Albert succumbs to Alexandre’s charm.” 16.     Four photographs of the Prince holding the child in his arms were published on pages 52, 53, 56 and 57, and were also accompanied by captions and/or subheadings. In particular, the caption on page 52 reads “Gentleness, tenderness and patience, key words for a prince who loves children”, and on page 53, “The Prince has always had a soft spot for children” and “Albert, President of the Monegasque Olympic Committee, wearing an Olympics shirt, with Alexandre in his arms”. The following subheading appeared on pages   56 and 57: “Alexandre at 6 months. He is already trying to stand up. This is one of his very first meetings with Albert. He sleeps in his mother’s bedroom. Nicole and her three sons have already moved into a flat in the 16th arrondissement of Paris.” Lastly, three photographs of the Prince with Ms Coste were published on pages   58 and 59. The photograph on page 58 was captioned as follows: “They met on a Nice to Paris flight, Nicole was an air hostess. She had left Lomé, in Togo, eight years previously, aged 17. ‘In my country, a father would have obliged his son to recognise his child’”. The photographs on page 59 were subtitled as follows: “Nicole also attended official events. In May 2001 she was on the Prince’s right as he received the singer Yannick at the Monte Carlo Music Awards. In 2002 (left) she can be seen in the Royal box at the Grand Prix.” 17.     On 10 May 2005 Ms Coste issued a statement indicating that she had agreed to give an interview to Paris Match , for publication in the edition of 5   May 2005, had carefully reread its wording, and had herself handed over the photographs showing the Prince with Alexandre. She specified that she had taken those photographs, and that she had taken them with the Prince’s full consent. She issued a further statement indicating that she had handed these photographs over to the media for publication without charge. She added that her son had been recognised before a notary, that the notarial deed had been signed on 15 December 2003 and that it had been agreed on that date that the deed would be sent to the district hall of the 14th   arrondissement of Paris immediately after Prince Rainier’s death. She stated that she had attempted, by all amicable means, to find a compromise with the Prince’s lawyer, and that it was the fact that the Prince had failed to honour his undertaking which had induced her to bring the matter to the public’s attention. With regard to the media, she stated: “they have merely helped my son and myself to have Alexandre officially recognised.” B.     The proceedings before the French courts 18.     On 19 May 2005, considering that the publication of the article in Paris Match interfered with his rights to private life and to protection of his own image, the Prince brought fixed-date proceedings against the applicants, on the basis of Article 8 of the Convention and Articles 9 and   1382 of the Civil Code, seeking damages from the publishing company and an order that it publish the court’s ruling on the front cover of the magazine, and requested that the court’s decision be immediately enforceable. 19.     On 29 June 2005 the Nanterre tribunal de grande instance (“the TGI”) ordered the company Hachette Filipacchi Associés to pay the Prince 50,000   euros (EUR) in non-pecuniary damages. It also ordered that details of the judgment be printed on the magazine’s entire front cover, at the publishing company’s expense and on pain of a daily fine, under the headline “Court order against Paris Match at the request of Prince Albert   II of Monaco”. The judgment was immediately enforceable. 20.     The TGI noted, in particular, that from the front page onwards, the magazine had disclosed the Prince’s paternity outside marriage, under the headline “Albert of Monaco: Alexandre, the secret child”, accompanied by a photograph showing him holding the child. It also noted that the article dealt with the issue of the Prince having fathered the child over ten pages inside the magazine, by means of an interview in which the questions led Ms   Coste to discuss her relationship with the Prince, the couple’s feelings, the Prince’s private life and reactions and the child’s recognition before a notary. It emphasised that the magazine had deliberately chosen numerous photographs, taken in the context of the intimacy of the protagonists’ private life, to illustrate and lend support to the disclosure, and that these photographs were accompanied by the magazine’s own captions, which also referred to the Prince’s love life and the circumstances in which he met the interviewee, analysing his conduct and his reactions to the young woman and the child, and speculating as to his feelings with regard to this secret child. 21.     The TGI held that the entire article, including the accompanying photographs, fell within the most intimate sphere of love and family life and that it did not concern any debate of general interest. It added: “... the claimant’s accession to the throne of the Principality of Monaco did not deprive him of the right to respect for his private life, nor of his right to protection of his own image in the face of mere rumours concerning the civil status of a child, which could not in any event serve as a legitimate pretext for providing information to a prying and curious public about the lives of public figures, their feelings and their private conduct, with a view to media coverage in the columns of a newspaper which cannot in all seriousness claim to take the place of the courtroom, which is where the rights of children are legally defended, without prejudice to those of women; The disputed article, which treats rumours in a sensational manner, both in its wording and through the accompanying pictures – which are completely irrelevant in that they contribute to the impugned interference with private life – amounts to a serious and wilful breach of the claimant’s fundamental personality rights, the latter having specifically served notice by extrajudicial process on the publishing company to respect those rights on 3 May 2005 ...” 22.     The applicants appealed against that judgment. 23.     In a press release of 6 July 2005, the Prince publicly acknowledged that he was the father of Alexandre. 24.     On 13 July 2005 the Versailles Court of Appeal suspended the immediate enforcement of the TGI’s judgment with regard to the order to publish the court’s judgment. 25.     On 24 November 2005 the Versailles Court of Appeal gave judgment. It noted that, through the interview with Ms Coste, the impugned article focused on disclosing the birth of the child, who was presented as having been born from the intimate relationship between the interviewee and the Prince from 1997 onwards. It also noted that although the latter might already have made a statement recognising the child in a notary’s office –   that is, in deliberately chosen conditions of confidentiality – by the time that the article was published, this statement had not given rise to a note in the margin of the child’s birth certificate, with the result that his birth and his father’s identity remained unknown to the public. 26.     The Court of Appeal also stated that a person’s affections, love life or family life and issues of paternity and maternity came within the sphere of private life and were protected by Article 9 of the Civil Code and Article   8 of the Convention, and that those provisions made no distinction between anonymous persons and public figures, whatever their civil, political or religious functions. It noted, however, that this principle allowed for an exception whenever the facts disclosed could give rise to a debate on account of their potential impact or consequences given the status or function of the persons concerned, in which case the duty to provide information took precedence over respect for private life. 27.     It reasoned as follows. “Given that the fact of Albert Grimaldi’s fatherhood had never been publicly recognised, that the Monegasque Constitution makes it impossible for a child born out of wedlock to accede to the throne and that Albert Grimaldi had not consented to the disclosure of his possible paternity of Ms Coste’s child, since on 3 May 2005 he had indicated to Hachette Filippachi Associés his opposition to the publication of those facts, it follows that Hachette Filipacchi Associés deliberately breached the provisions of Article 9 of the Civil Code and of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, without being able to justify this offence on the inexistent requirements of current-affairs reporting, the legitimacy of the information or its readers’ right to information, which did not include Albert Grimaldi’s secret paternity, even if he had become the reigning Prince of the Principality on his father’s death in April 2005; This interference in his private sphere, in that the article did not merely disclose the existence of a ‘secret’ child but also contained numerous digressions derived from Ms   Coste’s confessions concerning the circumstances of their meeting, the respondent’s feelings, his most intimate reactions in response to the news of Ms   Coste’s pregnancy and his attitude towards the child during private encounters in her flat, could not be justified by the concomitant publication of these facts in the magazine Bunte , or by the media impact caused by the content of the article, or by the fact that other publications had subsequently repeated these reports (which had become common knowledge through the fault of the publishing company), or by the alleged legitimacy of such a disclosure, given that the child had no official status which would have rendered his birth and the disclosure of the father’s identity a subject which the media and specifically the company Hachette Filipacchi Associés were required as part of their duty to provide information to bring to the public’s attention, or by the fact that Albert Grimaldi, faced – against his will – with the media impact of the disclosure of information about his private life that he had intended to keep secret if not confidential, has been obliged to provide a public explanation, or by the tone of the article, which, as Hachette Filipacchi Associés irrelevantly specifies, was intended to show the respondent in a particularly positive light; Although the photographs showing the child with the respondent which accompany the article were taken by Ms Coste with Albert Grimaldi’s consent, and although Ms   Coste, the only person having parental responsibility for the child, handed them over to Paris Match for publication, it remains the case that Albert Grimaldi did not consent to their being published in support of an article which constitutes an invasion of his privacy, with the result that their publication is wrongful ...” 28.     The Court of Appeal concluded that the publication in question had caused the Prince irreversible damage in that the fact of his paternity, which he had wished to keep secret and which had remained so from the child’s birth until publication of the impugned article, had suddenly, and against his will, become public knowledge. It considered that the non-pecuniary damage thus caused justified an order for publication of the court ruling as supplementary compensation, and that, in view of the nature of the breach and the seriousness of its consequences, such a measure was not disproportionate to the competing interests involved and, on the contrary, represented the most adequate redress in the particular circumstances of the case. It therefore upheld the judgment under appeal, except with regard to the conditions of publication of the court ruling, which was no longer to appear under a headline and was to take up only one third of the front cover. Thus, the Court of Appeal ordered that the lower third of the front cover of the first issue of Paris Match to be published in the week following service of the judgment was to display a white box containing the following text, printed in red letters, failing which the applicant company would be fined EUR   15,000 per issue after expiry of that deadline: “By a judgment of the Versailles Court of Appeal upholding the judgment delivered by the Nanterre tribunal de grande instance , the company Hachette Filipacchi Associés has been held liable for infringing the privacy and the right to his own image of Albert II of Monaco in issue no. 2920 of the Paris Match newspaper, dated 5 May 2005, in an article entitled ‘Albert of Monaco: Alexandre. The secret child’.” 29.     This statement was published on the front cover of edition no. 2955 of the magazine, dated 5 January 2006, under a photograph of the Prince. The cover bore the headline “Albert of Monaco. The truth has been punished”, which was accompanied by the following commentary: “ Paris Match disclosed the existence of his son, Alexandre. The courts have punished freedom to impart information. We have received support from the international press in reaction to this.” 30.     In addition, the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the Court of Appeal’s judgment. In their grounds of appeal, they developed the following arguments: the disclosure of a ruling sovereign prince’s paternity was a news event relating to public life, given the functions held by the individual in question and the hereditary nature of the transmission of power in the Principality of Monaco; disclosure of this information was necessary in order to inform the public; the publication of observations and digressions alongside the announcement of a news event such as the fact of a sovereign prince’s fatherhood was lawful, provided that these were innocuous and merely served to put the information into perspective; and the publication of photographs taken within the family, illustrating the news event described in the article, was not such as to interfere with respect for privacy and private life. 31.     Relying on Article 10 of the Convention and citing the Court’s case-law, the applicants also argued that the public had the right to be informed, and that this right extended to information concerning the private life of certain public figures. They considered, in particular, that the Court’s decision in Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 59320/00, §§ 62 and 76, ECHR 2004 ‑ VI) would have been the reverse had the relevant member of the royal family been, as in the present case, the Prince himself, Head of the State of Monaco. In support of this argument, they cited Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG v. Austria (no. 34315/96, 26 February 2002) which, they submitted, showed that the fact of being a politician brought an individual exercising that role into the sphere of public life, with the attendant consequences. They further argued that the Court of Cassation also recognised the public’s right to information, including with regard to facts concerning private life, even where the individual concerned held no public office. Lastly, they submitted that the primacy of the right to inform and the right to be informed had been established in similar circumstances, even where a person’s right to their own image was in issue. 32.     The applicants argued, in particular, that in a hereditary monarchy the Prince’s lack of known issue was already a matter of discussion, and that the existence of a child was such as to contribute to that discussion. They also submitted that the child was a potential heir to the Monegasque throne, since his father could legitimise him at any time. They considered that, even if improbable, this scenario remained legally possible, and could therefore become the subject of a general debate regarding the future of the Monegasque monarchy, and that, in addition, the fact that the child was of Togolese origin could contribute to a debate of general interest which had the potential to change the image of a particularly conservative principality. 33.     The applicants also pleaded the very strong ties which, they alleged, bound the Principality of Monaco to France. They further submitted that the worldwide impact of the contested material, including in the most serious and most prestigious newspapers, proved that the information disclosed by Paris Match was such as to contribute to a debate of general interest, and that this was not simply an article written to provide entertainment. 34.     They further argued that the photographs accompanying the article, showing the Prince with the child or with Ms Coste, illustrated a news event, and that they entailed no breach of respect for human dignity, since the Prince was presented in a positive light. They asserted that these photographs had not been taken without the Prince’s knowledge, but by Ms   Coste herself, and specified that she had handed them over to Paris Match for publication voluntarily and without charge. 35.     Lastly, they emphasised that the magazine Bunte had published an almost identical article in Germany on 4 May 2005, prior to publication of the impugned article, and that the German courts had dismissed the Prince’s action against that newspaper. 36.     By a judgment of 27 February 2007, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on points of law on, inter alia , the following grounds. “... every person, whatever his rank, birth, fortune or present or future functions, is entitled to respect for his private life; ... the judgment notes firstly that, on the date on which the article was published, the child’s existence and his descent were unknown to the public, and secondly that the Principality’s Constitution rules out the possibility of his accession to the throne, since he was born out of wedlock, a situation that, moreover, the company’s pleadings did not claim to be a subject of debate in French or Monegasque society or of examination in the impugned publication, and, lastly, [that] the article contained multiple digressions on the circumstances in which Ms   Coste and Prince Albert met and about their relationship, the Prince’s reactions to the news of the pregnancy and his subsequent attitude towards the child; ... in the light of these findings and considerations, the Court of Appeal correctly noted the lack of any topical news item or any debate on a matter of public interest which would have justified its being reported at the time of the impugned publication on the grounds of legitimate imparting of information to the public; ... moreover, the publication of photographs of a person to illustrate subsequent content which amounts to an invasion of his privacy necessarily infringes his right to control of his own image ...” C.     The proceedings before the German courts 37.     On 12 May 2005, after publication of the initial article on 4 May 2005 (see paragraph 11 above), the weekly magazine Bunte published another article about the disclosure of the Prince’s paternity, this time accompanied by several photographs showing the Prince and the child. 38.     The Prince brought urgent proceedings against the magazine in order to prevent any further publication, but his case was dismissed on 19 July 2005 by a judgment of the Freiburg Regional Court ( Landgericht ), upheld on 18 November 2005 by the Karlsruhe Court of Appeal ( Oberlandesgericht ). 39.     The Freiburg Regional Court noted, in particular, that, as a figure of contemporary history par excellence , the Prince had to tolerate the impugned encroachment on his private life, given the information value of the report. It noted that the veracity of the information published by the magazine with regard to the statements by the child’s mother and to the claimant’s paternity had not been disputed on any specific point. It considered that the publication was not unacceptable in terms of the protection of a person’s intimate sphere, since the disclosures did not relate to that sphere but to the sphere of private life, which was less protected. It held that the public’s right to information resulted from the claimant’s position in society, and that the pressure that he might have experienced as a result of those disclosures, aimed at obliging him to recognise his child, did not prohibit publication but was merely an inevitable consequence of it, which he was required to tolerate. It noted that the published photographs had been taken with the claimant’s agreement, in his private sphere, and had been made available to the press by a person who had just as much right to do so as the claimant. It held that the protection of the claimant’s private sphere and his right to his own image had to yield to the freedom of the press, on account of the importance of communicating to the public information concerning the claimant’s son born out of wedlock and about the child’s mother. Lastly, it considered that it was for the mother rather than for the Prince, who had not recognised the child, to decide whether the disclosure of the latter’s existence fell within the protected private sphere. 40.     Following the appeal by the Prince, the Court of Appeal ordered the magazine not to republish or allow to be published a photograph which had appeared in the 4 May 2005 issue of Bunte , showing the claimant in a moment of intimacy with Ms Coste. However, it considered that the issue of a male heir to the prince of Monaco – a constitutional hereditary monarchy   – was of decisive importance, and that the interest taken in this question not only by the citizens of Monaco but also by many persons who lived outside the Principality deserved protection and ought not to be superseded by the claimant’s interest in securing protection of his private sphere, on the ground that the current legal situation allowed only legitimate children to accede to the throne. II.     RELEVANT FRENCH AND MONEGASQUE LAW AND EUROPEAN TEXTS A.     Relevant domestic law 41.     The relevant provisions of the Civil Code are worded as follows: Article 9 “Everyone has the right to respect for his private life. Judges may, without prejudice to a right to compensation for the damage sustained, order any measures, such as seizure, attachment and others, capable of preventing or causing to cease an interference with a person’s privacy; in the event of urgency such measures may be ordered in urgent proceedings.” Article 1382 “Any act that causes damage to another shall render the person through whose fault the damage was caused liable to make reparation for it.” B.     The Constitution of the Principality of Monaco 42.     The relevant passages of Article 10 of the Constitution of 17   December 1962 of the Principality of Monaco (amended by Law no.   1.249 of 2 April 2002) provide: “The succession to the Throne, opened by death or abdication, takes place by the direct and legitimate issue of the reigning prince, by order of primogeniture, with priority given to males within the same degree of kinship. In the absence of direct legitimate issue, the succession passes to the brothers and sisters of the reigning prince and their direct legitimate descendants, by order of primogeniture, with priority given to males within the same degree of kinship. If the heir who would have acceded by virtue of the preceding paragraphs is deceased or renounced the Throne before the succession became open, the succession passes to His own direct legitimate descendants by order of primogeniture, with priority given to males within the same degree of kinship. If the application of the preceding paragraphs does not fill the vacancy of the Throne, the succession passes to a collateral heir appointed by the Crown Council upon same advice of the Regency Council. The powers of the prince are temporarily held by the Regency Council. The Throne can only pass to a person holding Monegasque citizenship on the day the succession opens. ...” C.     Relevant European texts 1.     Resolution 1165 (1998) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 43.     The relevant passages of Resolution 1165 (1998) on the right to privacy, adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 26 June 1998, read as follows: “1.     The Assembly recalls the current affairs debate it held on the right to privacy during its September 1997 session, a few weeks after the accident which cost the Princess of Wales her life. 2.     On that occasion, some people called for the protection of privacy, and in particular that of public figures, to be reinforced at the European level by means of a convention, while others believed that privacy was sufficiently protected by national legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights, and that freedom of expression should not be jeopardised. 3.     In order to explore the matter further, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights organised a hearing in Paris on 16 December 1997 with the participation of public figures or their representatives and the media. 4.     The right to privacy, guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, has already been defined by the Assembly in the declaration on mass communication media and human rights, contained within Resolution 428 (1970), as ‘the right to live one’s own life with a minimum of interference’. 5. In view of the new communication technologies which make it possible to store and use personal data, the right to control one’s own data should be added to this definition. 6.     The Assembly is aware that personal privacy is often invaded, even in countries with specific legislation to protect it, as people’s private lives have become a highly lucrative commodity for certain sectors of the media. The victims are essentially public figures, since details of their private lives serve as a stimulus to sales. At the same time, public figures must recognise that the position they occupy in society – in many cases by choice – automatically entails increased pressure on their privacy. 7.     Public figures are persons holding public office and/or using public resources and, more broadly speaking, all those who play a role in public life, whether in politics, the economy, the arts, the social sphere, sport or in any other domain. 8.     It is often in the name of a one-sided interpretation of the right to freedom of expression, which is guaranteed in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that the media invade people’s privacy, claiming that their readers are entitled to know everything about public figures. 9.     Certain facts relating to the private lives of public figures, particularly politicians, may indeed be of inter