Caroline von Hannover II en Axel Springer

In't kort: Portretrecht, privéleven en media. Uit't persbericht: Media coverage of celebrities’ private lives: acceptable if in the general interest and if in reasonable balance with the right to respect for private life.

EHRM 7 februari 2012, applicatienr. 40 660/08 en 60 641/08 (Caroline von Hannover / Duitsland II)
Fact: Since the early 1990s Princess Caroline has been trying to prevent the publication of photos of her private life in the press. In conclusion, the German courts had carefully balanced the right of the publishing companies to freedom of expression against the right of the applicants to respect for their private life. In doing so, they had explicitly taken into account the Court’s case-law, including its 2004 judgment in Caroline von Hannover v. Germany. There had accordingly been no violation of Article 8. Uitgebreide bespreking IEF 10878

EHRM 7 februari 2012, applicatienr. 39 954/08 (Axel Springer AG tegen Duitsland)
Fact: In September 2004, the Bild published a front-page article about X, a well-known television actor, being arrested in a tent at the Munich beer festival for possession of cocaine. While the sanctions imposed on Springer had been lenient, they were capable of having a chilling effect on the company. The Court concluded that the restrictions imposed on the company had not been reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the actor’s private life. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 10. Uitgebreide bespreking IEF 10879.

Caroline von Hannover II
The fact that the German Federal Court of Justice had assessed the information value of the photo in question – the only one against which it had not granted an injunction – in the light of the article that was published together with it could not be criticised under the Convention. The Court could accept that the photo, in the context of the article, did at least to some degree contribute to a debate of general interest. The German courts’ characterisation of Prince Rainier’s illness as an event of contemporary society could not be considered unreasonable. It was worth underlining that the German courts had granted the injunction prohibiting the publication of two other photos showing the applicants in similar circumstances, precisely on the grounds that they were being published for entertainment purposes alone.

Furthermore, irrespective of the question to what extent Caroline von Hannover assumed official functions on behalf of the Principality of Monaco, it could not be claimed that the applicants, who were undeniably very well known, were ordinary private individuals. They had to be regarded as public figures.

The German courts had concluded that the applicants had not provided any evidence that the photos had been taken in a climate of general harassment, as they had alleged, or that they had been taken secretly. In the circumstances of the case, the question as to how the pictures had been taken had required no more detailed examination by the courts, as the applicants had not put forward any relevant arguments in that regard.

In conclusion, the German courts had carefully balanced the right of the publishing companies to freedom of expression against the right of the applicants to respect for their private life. In doing so, they had explicitly taken into account the Court’s case-law, including its 2004 judgment in Caroline von Hannover v. Germany. There had accordingly been no violation of Article 8.

Axel Springer AG

According to a statement by one of the journalists involved, the truth of which had not been contested by the German Government, the information published in the Bild in September 2004 about the actor’s arrest had been obtained from the police and the Munich public prosecutor’s office. It therefore had a sufficient factual basis, and the truth of the information related in both articles was not in dispute between the parties.

Nothing suggested that Springer had not undertaken a balancing exercise between its interest in publishing the information and the actor’s right to respect for his private life. Given that Springer had obtained confirmation of the information conveyed by the prosecuting authorities, it did not have sufficiently strong grounds for believing that it should preserve the actor’s anonymity. It could therefore not be said to have acted in bad faith. In that context, the Court also noted that all the information revealed by Springer on the day on which the first article appeared was confirmed by the prosecutor to other magazines and to television channels.

The Court noted, moreover, that the articles had not revealed details about the actor’s private life, but had mainly concerned the circumstances of his arrest and the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. They contained no disparaging expression or unsubstantiated allegation, and the Government had not shown that the publication of the articles had resulted in serious consequences for the actor. While the sanctions imposed on Springer had been lenient, they were capable of having a chilling effect on the company. The Court concluded that the restrictions imposed on the company had not been reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the actor’s private life. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 10.