CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 juin 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   414 14.06.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT HACHETTE FILIPACCHI ASSOCIES v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France (application no. 71111/01).   The Court held by 5 votes to 2 that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of an order made against the Hachette Filipacchi company in civil proceedings following publication in Paris-Match of a photograph of the dead body of the Prefect of Corsica, Claude Erignac. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant company, Hachette Filipacchi Associés, is a legal person under French law with its registered office in Levallois-Perret (France). It publishes, among other items, the weekly magazine Paris-Match .   The case concerned an order made against the applicant company on account of the publication in Paris-Match of a photograph of the dead body of the Prefect of Corsica, Claude Erignac, just after he was murdered in Ajaccio in February 1998.   The 19 February 1998 issue of Paris-Match contained an article entitled “ La République assassinée ” (The murdered Republic) reporting on the murder of Prefect Erignac, on 6   February 1998. The article was illustrated by a photograph of the Prefect’s body lying in the road, facing the camera and included the following comment “ Sur ce trottoir d'Ajaccio, vendredi 6 février à 21 h 15, Claude Erignac, préfet de Corse, a écrit de son sang une page tragique de notre histoire ” (On this Ajaccio pavement, on Friday 6   February at 9.15 p.m., Claude Erignac, Prefect of Corsica, wrote with his blood a tragic page of our history).   The widow and children of Prefect Erignac sought injunctions against several companies, including Hachette Filipacchi Associés, asking the courts to order the seizure of the copies of any magazine, such as Paris-Match or VSD , in which a photo of the body appeared and to enforce prohibition of their sale by means of coercive fines. They contended that publication of the photograph of the bloodied and mutilated body of their relative was not information which could possibly be useful to the public but was prompted purely by commercial considerations and constituted a particularly intolerable infringement of their right to respect for their private life.   On 12 February 1998 the urgent applications judge, citing Article 809 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, issued an injunction requiring the Hachette Filipacchi company to publish at its own expense in Paris-Match a statement informing readers that Mrs Erignac and her children had found the photograph showing the dead body of Prefect Erignac published in Paris-Match deeply distressing.   Hachette Filipacchi appealed, arguing that the offending photograph was the image, in dark halftones, of an historic event, and could not, as such, constitute an intrusion into the Erignac family’s private life. On 24 February 1998 the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the injunction, noting, among other considerations, that publication of the photograph, while Prefect Erignac’s close family were still mourning his loss, and given the fact that they had not given their consent, constituted a gross disturbance of their grief, and accordingly of the intimacy of their private life. It ruled that such a photograph infringed human dignity and ordered the Hachette Filipacchi company to publish at its own expense in Paris-Match a statement informing readers that the photograph had been published without the consent of the Erignac family, who considered its publication an intrusion into the intimacy of their private life.   On 20 December 2000 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant company.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 20 March 2001 and declared admissible on 2 February 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 10, the applicant company complained of the injunction requiring it to publish, on pain of a coercive fine, a statement informing readers that the photograph had been published without the consent of the Erignac family.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court considered that the obligation to publish a statement amounted to interference by the authorities with the applicant company’s exercise of its freedom of expression.   As to whether this interference was prescribed by law, the Court noted that Article 9 of the Civil Code gave the judges called upon to oversee its application the precisely circumscribed power to prevent or cause to cease an intrusion into the intimacy of private life. In a very flexible way Article 9 had made it possible to develop the concept of “private life” and the “right to protection of one’s image”, which was itself derived from a case-law development that was now well established, and had provided a way to adapt to numerous factual situations which might arise and to developments in social relations, mentalities and techniques.   The Court further noted that the practice of requiring publication of a statement was sanctioned by a long tradition of settled French case-law and was regarded by the French courts as “one of the ways of making good damage caused through the press.” It considered that this case-law satisfied the conditions of accessibility and foreseeability required for a finding that this form of interference was “prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.   The Court also considered that the interference complained of had pursued a legitimate aim – protection of the rights of others – and noted that the rights concerned fell within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention, guaranteeing the right to respect for private and family life.   The question which the Court therefore had to answer was whether the interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”. In order to answer that question, the Court took into account the duties and responsibilities inherent in exercise of the freedom of expression and the potentially dissuasive effect of the penalty imposed in the present case.   As regards the “duties and responsibilities” inherent in exercise of the freedom of expression, the Court reiterated that the death of a close relative and the ensuing mourning, which were a source of intense grief, must sometimes lead the authorities to take the necessary measures to ensure respect for the private and family lives of the persons concerned. In the present case, the offending photograph had been published in the 19 February 1998 issue of Paris-Match , i.e. only 13 days after the murder and ten days after the funeral. The Court considered that the distress of Mr Erignac’s close relatives should have led journalists to exercise prudence and caution, given that he had died in violent circumstances which were traumatic for his family, who had expressly opposed publication of the photograph. The result of publication, in a magazine with a very high circulation, had been to heighten the trauma felt by the victim’s close relatives in the aftermath of the murder, so that they were justified in arguing that there had been an infringement of their right to respect for their private life.   The Court then examined to what extent the obligation to publish a statement might have a dissuasive effect on exercise of the freedom of the press. It noted that the French courts had refused the Erignac family’s application for an order to seize the offending copies of Paris-Match , among other publications. The Court considered that the wording of the statement, which was different from the text in the first-instance proceedings, revealed the care the French courts had taken to respect the editorial freedom of Paris-Match , which was characterised in particular by the policy of illustrating stories with striking photographs. That being so, the Court considered that of all the sanctions which French legislation permitted, particularly in view of the way Article 9 of the Civil Code had been interpreted by the French courts, the order to publish the statement was the one which, both in principle and as regards its content, was the sanction entailing the least restrictions on exercise of the applicant company’s rights. It noted that the applicant company had not shown in what way the order to publish the statement had actually had a dissuasive effect on the way Paris-Match had exercised and continued to exercise its right to freedom of expression.   In conclusion, the Court considered that the order requiring Paris-Match to publish a statement, for which the French courts had given reasons which were both “relevant and sufficient”, had been proportionate to the legitimate aim it pursued, and therefore “necessary in a democratic society”. It accordingly held that there had been no violation of Article 10.     Judges Loucaides and Vajić expressed dissenting opinions, which are annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.