CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 juillet 2009

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 }   594 23.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT HACHETTE FILIPACCHI ASSOCIES («   ICI PARIS   » ) v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Hachette Filipacchi Associés (“Ici Paris”) v. France (application no. 12268/03). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the 2002 court ruling against the applicant, a publishing company, following its publication in 1996 of an article about the singer Johnny Hallyday.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant company 26,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage (the amount it had been ordered to pay by the French courts) and EUR   10,000 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in French. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Hachette Filipacchi Associés, is a French commercial partnership with its registered office in Levallois-Perret (France). On 13 November 1996 the weekly magazine Ici Paris , published by the applicant company, carried an article entitled “What if he flops in Las Vegas? Panic stations, Johnny!”. Among other things, the article referred to the supposed financial difficulties of the singer Johnny Hallyday (real name Mr   Smet) and his extravagant tastes. The article was illustrated by four photographs of the singer, one showing him on stage and the others being advertising material for products with which he had allowed his name and image to be associated. On 4   March 1997 the singer brought proceedings against the publishing company, seeking a ruling that it had infringed his right to respect for his private life. His claims were dismissed almost in their entirety by the Paris tribunal de grande instance (2   July 1997) and subsequently the Paris Court of Appeal (6   March 1998), in particular on the ground that the magazine in question had simply mentioned aspects of Johnny Hallyday’s property and financial lifestyle that were common knowledge and had been disclosed by him on numerous occasions, not least in his autobiography. After the Court of Cassation had quashed the lower court’s decision, the case was referred to the Versailles Court of Appeal, which on 9   October 2002 ordered Hachette Filipacchi Associés to pay EUR   20,000 in damages, together with costs and expenses. The Court of Appeal considered, firstly, that the publication of the photographs had not been consistent with the purpose of advertising for which he had allowed his image to be used and, secondly, that the information provided about Johnny Hallyday’s lifestyle breached his right to respect for his private life. On 23 September 2004 the Court of Cassation dismissed with final effect an appeal on points of law by the applicant company.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 April 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Rait Maruste (Estonia), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic), Renate Jaeger (Germany), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Hachette Filipacchi Associés submitted that the ruling against it for invasion of privacy had infringed its right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   The Court dismissed the Government’s argument that the dispute was of a private nature and thus outside the State’s jurisdiction, holding that the ruling against Hachette Filipacchi Associés had manifestly constituted interference by the public authorities with its right to freedom of expression. The interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the singer’s right to respect for his private life. The Court was therefore called upon to settle a conflict of fundamental rights between that right and the publishing company’s right to freedom of expression.   The Court attached particular importance to the fact that the photographs published had been derived from advertising material, which set this case apart from cases in which the photographs in issue had been obtained through contentious or undercover methods or had interfered with the privacy of the persons concerned.   The previous disclosure by Johnny Hallyday himself (in his autobiography) of the relevant information about the lavish way in which he managed and spent his money was also an essential element of the Court’s analysis. The singer’s disclosures weakened the degree of protection to which he was entitled as regards his private life. That decisive factor should have been taken into account by the French courts in their assessment of the publishing company’s liability, but this had not been the case.   Lastly, although the article might have appeared negative towards Johnny Hallyday, it did not contain any offensive expressions or harmful intent towards him. The limits attached to the exercise of journalistic freedom in a democratic society had not been overstepped.   Since a fair balance had not been struck between the conflicting interests at stake, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 10.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.