CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 juin 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 65 June 2004 Von Hannover v. Germany - 59320/00 Judgment 24.6.2004 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Publication in the sensationalist press of photos concerning the private life of a princess: violation The applicant is the eldest daughter of Prince Rainier III of Monaco. A number of German tabloid magazines published several series of photos, taken without her knowledge, showing her outside her home going about her daily business either alone or in company. The applicant sought an injunction in the German courts against any further publication of the photos in Germany. The lower courts held that, under the Copyright Act, the applicant, as a “figure of contemporary society “par excellence” ( eine “absolute” Person der Zeitgeschichte ) had to tolerate the publication without her consent of photos taken outside her home. The Federal Court of Justice held that figures of contemporary society were entitled to respect for their private life even outside their home, but only if they had retired to a “secluded place” ( in eine örtliche Abgeschiedenheit ) where it was objectively clear to everyone that they wanted to be alone and where, confident of being away from prying eyes, they behaved in a given situation in a manner in which they would not behave in a public place (criterion of spatial isolation). In accordance with that criterion the applicant won her case regarding the photos showing her with her boyfriend at the far end of a restaurant courtyard. That approach was upheld by a leading judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court. That court attached decisive weight to the freedom of the press and the public interest in knowing how a princess behaved outside her representative functions. The applicant lost her case against the publication of photos showing her outside her home going about her daily life, either alone or accompanied, in a “non-isolated place”. The law : Article 8 – The publication of photos showing the applicant, alone or in the company of an adult, engaged in purely private activities in her daily life fell within the scope of her “private life”. The photos and accompanying commentaries had been published for the purposes of an article designed to satisfy the curiosity of a particular readership regarding the details of the private life of the princess, who was not a public figure and did not fulfil any official function on behalf of Monaco. In short, the publications in question had not contributed to any debate of general interest to society despite the applicant being known to the public. The Court also stressed that everyone, even if they were known to the general public, had to have a “legitimate expectation” of protection and respect for their private life, which included a social dimension. The photos in question – which concerned exclusively details of the applicant’s private life – had been taken without her knowledge or consent and in the context of daily harassment by photographers. Moreover, increased vigilance in protecting private life was necessary to contend with new communication technologies which, among other things, made possible the systematic taking of photos and their dissemination to a broad section of the public. In defining the applicant as a figure of contemporary society par excellence, the domestic courts did not allow her to rely on her right to protection of her private life unless she was in a secluded place out of the public eye and, moreover, succeeded in proving it (which could be difficult). In the Court’s view, the criterion of spatial isolation was in reality too vague and difficult for the person concerned to determine in advance. The State, which had a positive obligation under the Convention to protect private life and the right to control the use of one’s image, had failed to ensure the effective protection of the applicant’s private life. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court reserved this question.   © 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