Cases & Projects

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has decided two landmark cases concerning the relationship between the right to freedom of expresison and privacy: Von Hannover v. Germany (No.2) and Axel Springer AG v. Germany. 

Von Hannover concerned the publication of photos taken of Princess Caroline of Monaco and her husband during their skiing holiday. The photos accompanied an article about the poor health of Princess Caroline’s father, Prince Rainier of Monaco. Princess Caroline tried to get an injunction against further publication of the material, but the request was dismissed by the German courts. She then made an application to the European Court, claiming a violation of her right to privacy under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court found that no such violation had occurred. According to the Grand Chamber, the national courts had carefully balanced the right of the publishers against the Princess’ right to respect for her private life: they had attached fundamental importance to the question whether the photos and accompanying articles had contributed to a debate of general interest and had also examined the circumstances under which the photos had been taken.

Springer concerned the publication of photos and two articles on the prosecution on drug charges of a well-known German television actor. The German courts had granted an injunction against publication of the material, finding that the actor’s right to protect his reputation prevailed over the public’s interest to be informed. The Court found that, under the circumstances, the interference with the publisher’s Article 10 rights was not necessary in a democratic society: there was a certain public interest in informing the public about criminal proceedings, the actor was well-known and the information had only been published after its disclosure by the prosecuting authorities. While the sanctions imposed were not severe, they were capable of having a chilling effect and were in any event considered not justified in light of the relevant factors.

The Media Legal Defence Initiative intervened in both cases (click here to download our intervention) together with the World Association of Newspapers and the International Press Institute, arguing that the Court should grant a broad margin of appreciation to national courts when balancing privacy and freedom of expression. Our intervention stressed in particular that Strasbourg should not overturn domestic judgments that rule in favour of the right to freedom of expression unless the domestic judgment is manifestly wrong. We expressed our strong concern at the increasing number of cases in Strasbourg from unsuccessful claimants in privacy and defamation cases, and at the danger that a pro-privacy judgment would open the floodgates in that regard and undermine hard-fought standards protecting the right to freedom of expression.

MLDI, WAN and IPI are grateful for Hogan Lovells' assistance in drafting the intervention