CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 31 octobre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s9275BB19 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)124 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Von Hannover against Germany   (Application No. 59320/00, judgment of 24 June 2004, final on 24 September 2004 and judgment of 28 July 2005)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns a breach of the right to respect for private life of the applicant, Princess Caroline von Hannover, the eldest daughter of Prince Rainier III of Monaco, on account of German courts' refusal of her requests to prohibit publication of a series photographs of her (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Germany's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures, preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)124   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Von Hannover against Germany     Introductory case summary   The case concerns a breach of the right to respect for private life of the applicant, Princess Caroline von Hannover, the eldest daughter of Prince Rainier III of Monaco, on account of German courts' refusal of her requests to prohibit certain photographs of her.   In a landmark judgment of 15 December 1999 the Federal Constitutional Court partially granted the applicant's injunction regarding the photographs in which she appeared with her children on the ground that their need for protection of their intimacy was greater than that of adults. However, it considered that the applicant, who was undeniably a contemporary “public figure”, had to tolerate the publication of photographs of herself in a public place, even if they showed her in scenes from her daily life rather than engaged in her official duties.   The European Court considered that the German courts' interpretation of the notion of “public figure” was too restrictive in that the photographs at issue aimed solely at revealing details of the applicant's private life without her knowledge or consent, and did not contribute to any form of debate in the general interest of society - the more so since the applicant has no official position. What is more, even if such a public interest existed, just as there was a commercial interest for the magazines to publish the photographs and articles, those interests had, according to the judgment of the European Court to yield to the applicant's right to the effective protection of her private life (violation of Article 8).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Paid on 10   000 € 105   000 € 115   000 € 28/10/2005 Just satisfaction corresponds to a friendly settlement     b) Individual measures   Although it is possible under German law, the applicant did not take action to prevent further publication of the photographs in question after the European Court's judgment, but took action against a similar photograph, see under “General Measures”, No. 4) below. According to information available to the Secretariat, the photographs at issue in the European Court's judgment have not been reprinted by the German press.     II.   General measures   - Publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court: The judgment has been widely published and discussed by the German legal community. As is the case with all judgments of the European Court against Germany it is publicly available via the website of the Federal Ministry of Justice ( www.bmj.de , Themen: Menschenrechte , EGMR) which provides a direct link to the Court's website for judgments in German ( www.coe.int/T/D/Menschenrechtsgerichtshof/Dokumente_auf_Deutsch / ). Furthermore, the judgment was disseminated by letter of the Government Agent to the courts and justice authorities concerned.   - Change of domestic case law: When deciding upon similar cases, domestic courts have taken into account the judgment of the European Court, thus giving it direct effect in German law:   1) The partner of a famous singer successfully sued at the Berlin Court of Appeal (KG Urt. v. 29.10.2004, 9 W 128/04, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift , NJW, 2005, p. 605- 607).   2) The Convention's principles as set out in the European Court's judgments were also acknowledged, even though they were not directly relevant to the case, in a judgment of the Hamburg District Court forbidding commercial exploitation of the popularity of former Chancellor Schröder (AG Hamburg, Urt. v. 2.11.2004, 36A C 184/04, NJW-RR 2005, p. 196 - 198).   3) On the basis of the judgment of the European Court, the German Federal Civil Court upheld a judgment allowing the publication of an article about fining the applicant's husband for speeding on a French motorway. The Court stated that the public had a justified interest in this information as it constitutes an offence, making this behaviour the topic of a public discussion (BGH, Urt. v. 15.11.2005, VI ZR 286/04, available via www.bundesgerichtshof.de ).   4) Concerning the applicant herself, in July 2005, the regional court of Hamburg ( Landgericht ), referring to the judgment of the European Court, decided in favour of the applicant, prohibiting the publication of a photograph showing her together with her husband in a St. Moritz street during a ski-ing holiday. However, in December 2005, the 2nd instance (Appeal Court of Hamburg, Oberlandesgericht ) reversed this decision, basing its judgment rather on the case-law of the German Federal Constitutional Court ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ). Upon revision to the Federal Civil Court ( Bundesgerichtshof ) sought by the applicant, the Federal Civil Court on 6 March 2007 decided that the photograph in question may be published. In its reasoning the domestic court, balancing the different interests at stake, explicitly took into account the Convention's requirements as set out in the European Court's judgment (BGH, Urt. v. 6.3.2007, VI ZR 14/06 available via www.bundesgerichtshof.de ).   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that Germany has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 October 2007 at the 1007th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies