CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 juin 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 175 June 2014 Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France - 40454/07 Judgment 12.6.2014 [Section V] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom to impart information Finding of liability against publishers of article and photographs revealing existence of monarch’s secret child: violation [This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 13 October 2014] Facts – The applicants are the publication director of the weekly magazine Paris Match and the company which publishes the magazine. On 3 May 2005 the English newspaper the Daily Mail published claims by Ms   C. that Albert Grimaldi, the reigning Prince of Monaco, was the father of her son. The article referred to the forthcoming report in Paris Match magazine and reproduced the main points of the report together with three photographs, one of which showed the Prince holding the child in his arms. The interview with Ms   C. and the photographs in question also appeared in the German weekly magazine Bunte on 4   May 2005. On 6 May 2005 Paris Match published an article in which Ms   C. gave details about how she had met the Prince, their meetings, their intimate relationship and feelings, the way in which the Prince had reacted to the news of Ms   C.’s pregnancy and his attitude on meeting the child. She said that the child had been born on 24   August 2003 and that the Prince had formally recognised him before a notary on 15   December 2003 but had requested that this fact should not be made public before the death of his own father, who died in April 2005. The Prince brought proceedings against the applicants in a French court, seeking compensation for invasion of privacy and infringement of his right to protection of his own image. He also brought proceedings before the German courts. Unlike the latter, the French courts granted his request, awarding him EUR 50,000 in damages and ordering that details of the judgment be published, occupying one third of the magazine’s front cover. Law – Article 10: The judgment against the applicants for invasion of privacy and infringement of the Prince’s right to the protection of his own image amounted to interference with the exercise of their right to freedom of expression. That interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the reputation and rights of others. In the present case, consideration had to be given to the fact that this had not merely been a dispute between the press and a public figure; the interests of Ms   C. and the child A. had also been at stake. Ms   C. had supplied information to the press and had played a pivotal role in the case as the mother of the child born outside marriage; the report had come within the sphere of her private life as well as that of her son and of the Prince. The child’s existence and origins had been the main focus of the report. The Court had to be mindful of the fact that Ms   C. had used the press to draw public attention to the situation of her child, who had been born outside marriage and had not been formally recognised by his father. (a)     Contribution to a debate of general interest – A distinction had to be made between the core message of the article and the details contained in it. The article and the photographs had concerned the offspring of a reigning Prince, revealing the existence of a son born outside marriage of which the public had previously been unaware. Even though, under the Constitution of Monaco as it currently stood, the child in question did not have a claim to succeed his father, his very existence was apt to be of interest to the public and in particular to the citizens of Monaco. As succession to the title was based on heredity, the birth of a child had special significance. Furthermore, the Prince’s attitude could provide an insight into his personality and his capacity to perform his duties adequately. The requirements of the protection of the Prince’s private life and the debate on the future of the hereditary monarchy had thus been in competition. As this was an issue of political significance, the public had had a legitimate interest in knowing of the child’s existence and being able to conduct a debate on the possible implications for political life in the Principality of Monaco. However, this approach could not be applied to all the details concerning the private lives of the Prince and Ms   C. contained in the article, and in particular the circumstances of their meeting and their relationship and the Prince’s attitude towards the news of the pregnancy and subsequently towards the child. (b)     Official functions and public profile of the person concerned, and subject of the report – It was clear that, as Head of State, the Prince had been a public figure at the time the interview was published. As to the subject of the report and the photographs, the decisive factor in weighing the protection of private life against freedom of expression had to be the contribution made to a debate of general interest. In the present case the report and the photographs had concerned the Prince’s relationship with the child’s mother, the birth of the child, the Prince’s feelings and his reaction to the birth of his son, and his relationship with his son. While the subjects dealt with in this case came within the sphere of the Prince’s private life, it was not only his private life that had been at stake, but also that of the child’s mother and the child himself. It was difficult to see how the private life of one person – in this instance the Prince – could stand in the way of the claims of another person – his son – seeking to assert his existence and have his identity recognised. The Court noted in that regard that Ms   C. had consented to publication on her own behalf and on behalf of her son. (c)     Means by which the information was obtained and its veracity – With regard to the text, in contrast to other cases the Court had dealt with one of the persons directly concerned had taken the initiative of informing the press on a certain subject, as opposed to the investigative press uncovering the information. As to the manner in which the photographs illustrating the article had been obtained, unlike in many cases brought before the Court the photographs had not been taken without the Prince’s knowledge. On the contrary, they had been taken, notably by the child’s mother, in the privacy of an apartment. Although the images published had included a large number of photographs of a very small child, they had been handed over to the magazine by the child’s mother, who herself appeared in some of them. The Prince had never disputed the veracity of those images but had simply taken issue with their publication. Furthermore, the photographs had not been taken in circumstances that were unfavourable to the Prince or his son. Accordingly, the Court considered that, in the present case, the fact that the interview had been initiated by the child’s mother and that she had handed over the photographs to the magazine of her own free will was an important factor to be considered in weighing the protection of private life against freedom of expression. (d)     Form and repercussions of the impugned articles – Over one million copies had been printed of the issue of the national weekly magazine Paris Match in which the article and photographs in question had appeared in May 2005. However, an account of the interview with the mother and some of the photographs had already been published on 3   May 2005 in the British newspaper the Daily Mail . The German weekly magazine Bunte had also printed an article on 4   May 2005 containing extracts from the interview with the child’s mother and several photographs. Accordingly, in view of the means of communication now available, although the article published in Paris Match on 5   May 2005 had undoubtedly had significant repercussions, the information it contained had no longer been confidential. Moreover, the article had not made any defamatory allegations and the Prince had not disputed the truth of the disclosures it contained. (e)     Severity of the penalty imposed on the applicants – The sum of EUR 50,000 awarded for damages was considerable. In addition, the applicants had been ordered to publish a statement occupying one third of the magazine’s front cover. (f)     Impact of publication on the persons concerned – In making these disclosures, the child’s mother had clearly sought to secure public recognition of her son’s status and of the fact that the Prince was his father, which she saw as crucial factors in ending the secrecy surrounding her son. In order to do this she had made public, in addition to the facts concerning the child’s paternity, certain information which had not been necessary and which fell within the sphere not just of her own private life but also of that of the Prince. (g)     Conclusion – The judgment against the applicants had made no distinction between information which formed part of a debate of general interest and that which merely concerned details of the Prince’s private life. Accordingly, in spite of the margin of appreciation left to States in this matter, there had been no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the restrictions imposed by the courts on the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and the legitimate aim pursued. Conclusion : violation (four votes to three). Article 41: No claim made in respect of damage.   © 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