CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 10 juillet 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     383   10.7.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   ADMISSIBILITY DECISION IN THE CASE OF VON HANNOVER v. GERMANY   The European Court of Human Rights has declared admissible the application lodged in the case of von Hannover v. Germany (no. 59320/00). It has also decided to hold a hearing on the merits of the application at 9.30 a.m. on 6   November 2003 . (The decision is in French only.)   The applicant   The applicant, Princess Caroline von Hannover, born in 1957, is the eldest daughter of Prince Rainier III of Monaco. She is a national of Monaco, where she lives.   Summary of the facts   Since the beginning of the 1990s Princess Caroline von Hannover has been campaigning – often through the courts – in various European countries to prevent photos about her private life being published in the sensationalist press.   She has on several occasions unsuccessfully applied to the German courts for an injunction preventing any further publication of a series of photos which had appeared in the 1990s in the German magazines Bunte , Freizeit Revue and Neue Post . She claimed that these infringed her right to protection of her private life and her right to control the use of her image.   In a landmark judgment of 15 December 1999 the Federal Constitutional Court granted the applicant’s injunction regarding the photos 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, the Constitutional Court considered that the applicant, who was undeniably a contemporary “public figure”, had to tolerate the publication of photos of herself in a public place, even if the photos showed scenes from her daily life rather than showing her engaged in her official duties. The Constitutional Court referred in that connection to the freedom of the press and to the public’s legitimate interest in knowing how such a person generally behaved in public.   Complaints   The applicant lodged her application on 6 June 2000. She maintains that the decisions of the German courts infringed her right to respect for her private life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. She complains that the courts failed to protect her adequately from the publication of photos taken without her knowledge by paparazzi on the ground that, given her origins, she was undeniably a contemporary “public figure”. She also complains of an infringement of her right to respect for her family life.   ***   The decision is available today on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.