CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 février 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 83 February 2006 Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France (dec.) - 71111/01 Decision 2.2.2006 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom to impart information Publication of a photograph showing the body of a prefect shot dead, penalised by the judges on request of the family: admissible   Paris Match , a weekly sensationalist magazine with nationwide circulation, published a photograph of the bleeding body of a French prefect who had been shot dead and was lying on the road. The photograph had been taken just a few minutes after the murder and showed the mutilated victim quite close up, with his face turned towards the camera. The picture illustrated an article entitled “The Republic Assassinated”. It was published one week after the national tragedy. The widow and children of the deceased sought an injunction to have the magazine withdrawn from sale. They asserted, in particular, that the photograph constituted particularly intolerable interference with their private life. The judges agreed, finding that the publication of the photograph was harmful to the complainants' feelings and privacy. The court ordered the publication of a judicial notice in Paris Match to inform readers of the interference with private life thus constituted. The Court of Cassation, noting that the picture diminished the dignity of the human person, upheld the decision challenged by the applicant press company, considering it justified under Article 10 of the Convention. Admissible under Article 10.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes