Von Hannover v. Germany (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 55

July 2003

Von Hannover v. Germany (dec.) - 59320/00

Decision 8.7.2003 [Section III]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Publication by the press, without consent, of photographs of a princess and her companion taken in “non-isolated” locations: admissible

The applicant is the eldest daughter of Prince Rainier III of Monaco. Certain German magazines published series of photographs taken by paparazzi showing the applicant in her everyday life, with her children and her companion. The applicant requested the German courts to ban any fresh publication of the photographs. She relied on her right to the protection of her personality, on the basis of the Basic Law, and on her right to protection of her family life and her own image, guaranteed by the “Copyright Act”. The applicant was unsuccessful in part before the lower courts, on the ground, in particular, that as an undisputed “figure” of our era (eine “absolute” Person der Zeigeschichte), she had to put up with such photographs taken in public places being published without her consent. By judgment of 19 December 1995, the Federal Court of Justice granted the applicant’s application in part and banned any fresh publication of the photographs showing her with her companion in the courtyard of a restaurant, on the ground that the photographs infringed her right to respect for her private life. According to the Federal Court, even an indisputable “figure” of our era was entitled to respect for her family life, which was not restricted to her home but also encompassed the publication of photographs. However, outside the home, such a person could rely on protection of her private sphere only if she had retired to an isolated place (in eineörtliche Abgeschiedenheit) where it was objectively apparent to everyone that she wished to be alone and where, believing herself to be safe from prying eyes, she displayed in a given situation conduct which she would not have displayed had she been in a public place. There was therefore an unlawful breach of the protection of the private sphere when photographs were published which had been taken surreptitiously and/or which caught unawares a person who had retired to an isolated place. However, the Federal Court dismissed the remainder of the application, on the ground that as an indisputable “figure” of our era, the applicant had to put up with the publication of photographs where she appeared in a public place, even if they depicted scenes of her daily life rather than showing her carrying out official functions. The public had a lawful interest in knowing where the applicant was staying and how she acted in public. In December 1999, the Constitutional Court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part, holding that the photographs showing the applicant in public places in the company of her children failed to observe her right to protection of her personality and her right to the protection of her family. The Constitutional Court upheld the grounds on which the Federal Court had dismissed the remainder of the application. The applicant brought two further actions. She was unsuccessful, notably in application of the principles set out in the judgment of the Federal Court of December 1995 and in the leading judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 1999.

Admissible under Article 8: The dispute relating to the three photographs showing the applicant in the company of her children was closed when the parties reached a settlement during the domestic proceedings; those photographs therefore no longer form the subject-matter of the application. The Government consider that the applicant’s complaint relating to the protection of her family life is incompatible ratione materiae, since none of the other photographs to which the application relates depicts the applicant with members of her family. The Court decided to join that question to the merits of the application.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy