Von Hannover v Germany
The private life of Caroline Princess of Hanover, then Caroline of Monaco, was often subject to the reporting by the tabloid press. Since the early 1990s, the Princess went with the help of lawyers are consistently ahead against the publication of paparazzi photographs of her private life. There were several processes that ran through all the way up to federal court, the Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. Several of the judgments are called Caroline judgments.
The verdict of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in 2004 brought for the entire European press to significant constraints on the possibilities of reporting details of the private lives of celebrities.
- 2.1 Summary of the Judgment
- 3.1 From the judgment Summary
Federal Court 1995
BGH VI ZR 15/95, December 19, 1995
In this method, Princess Caroline had sued the publisher Burda before the Regional Court of Hamburg after the magazines had Freizeit Revue and Colorful printed several photographs in Germany and France, which they alone, showed together with the actor Vincent Lindon, their children or bystanders.
The district court granted the application in so far as it was concerned the distribution in France, with respect to Germany, it had, however, in the remainder of the action from. Against this judgment both parties appealed, the Court of Appeal dismissed the action as a whole. Against the princess appealed before the Federal Court.
The Supreme Court ruled that the publication of the images in which the princess with Vincent Lindon was seen during the visit of a garden premises, was inadmissible, whereas the publication of all other images would not be objectionable. The Court considered this initially on the right to the image according to § 22 KunstUrhG ( Law on Copyright in Works of Fine Arts and the photograph [ sic], even RHC called ) but assumed for the majority of the images that their publication according to § 23 para 1 KunstUrhG be upheld because the princess was a person of contemporary history.
From the reasons for this decision:
Summary of the Judgment
Federal Constitutional Court in 1999
→ Main article: Caroline - of - Monaco - II verdict
Federal Constitutional Court, 1BvR 653/96, December 15, 1999
Represented by the lawyer Matthias Prinz, complained the princess against the judgment of the Supreme Court before the Federal Constitutional Court. The court ruled that the Supreme Court reinforcing the pictures that showed the children the princess, " the general rights of personality ( Article 2, Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 1 paragraph 1 GG ) Effect of Article 6 of the Basic Law (Protection of family, parental rights ) " would not be considered and referred the application on that point back to the Supreme Court. Of the five other photos, the Court dismissed the constitutional complaint, however.
This judgment was regarded as trend-setting, until it was declared 2004 the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights incompatible.
Summary of the Judgment
European Court of Human Rights 2004 ( Small Chamber)
ECtHR, Application no. 59320 /00, June 24, 2004 ( ECHR NJW 2004, 2647 et seq )
Princess Caroline refused to accept the verdict and cried - turn represented by Prince - the European Court of Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled last instance, that the right to respect for private life (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ) had been violated by the publication of the images.
The resulting claim for damages was settled out of court. The German federal government paid Caroline in 2005 damages for inadequate protection by the German courts and also reimbursed the cost. Overall, the payment amounted to 115,000 €.
From the judgment Summary
Effects
Matthias Prinz, the lawyer of Princess Caroline, was pleased with the " wonderful decision " and said: "It was crucial to create more space here. We have to ensure that the guarantee of privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights to every European citizen applies to everyone. For all citizens, even if they are more prominent. "
The entire European press, especially the tabloids, were dismayed and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung headlined on the same day even Europe's judges to pry the press freedom. Also available in larger parts of the law, the verdict was heavily criticized - it is feared that now the so-called "Boulevard " coverage could be limited if the public interest in information would each be due to a serious debate now. On the other hand, have judgments of the ECtHR only the rank of a simple national law.
The fears of the tabloids, the European Court of Human Rights would have paved the way for extensive " censorship" of the mass media, proved true not ultimately to the full extent, but led to a significant decrease paparazzi images in the media. Matthias Prinz later said " The photos that we have seen in recent years, each year that are completely devoid of content, so if you keep seeing the same clients from us again and again walking along the same swimwear, the same bikinis again at the beach where really no more evidence is there of these pictures we've seen less this year, because they are really no longer be justified. "
On the other hand, the publication was far more difficult than legitimate existing recordings or impossible, such as in the case of Manager magazine, which had the Group Merckle ( ratiopharm ) reported: When the Open Day, which also includes journalists were admitted, had reporter the magazine pictures of Ludwig Merckle made . However, Merckle sued the publication and won.
Specifically, the judgment of the ECHR of 2004 ultimately led to the Federal Court, the concept of absolute and relative figures of contemporary society in its decision of 6 March 2007, which summarized the three injunctions Caroline of Hanover against two magazines, revised. In place of fixed conditions now occurs in each case an individual decision as to whether an image is considered to be historically relevant. This view of the BGH confirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court decision of 26 February 2008 as compatible with the Constitution.
European Court of Human Rights ( Grand Chamber), judgment of February 7, 2012
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, judgment of 7 March 2012, Case No. 40660 / 08 and 60641 /08 ( From Hannover II), Communication and Law 2012, 179 et seq; ECtHR, Grand Chamber, judgment of 7 February 2012 ( Axel Springer AG), Case No. 39954 /08, Communication and Law 2012, 187 et seq
These results of recent German case law has confirmed in a judgment of 7 February 2012, the ECtHR (Grand Chamber). He emphasized that a public interest in information on the circumstances of the individual case could also consist of sports topics or performers, but not with alleged marital problems of a president or money worries of a well-known singer. The disease of the reigning Prince of Monaco was entitled to be considered as an event in the area of contemporary history. Generally applies to the public of unknown persons in need of greater protection than the public well-known people. Also noted the ECHR that are public figures Caroline and Ernst August of Hanover.
In a parallel process, the ECtHR had to rule on the admissibility of a report on drug use by a German actor. He emphasized that the public interest in the reporting of criminal proceedings could be less pronounced. As consideration Criteria used in this question, inter alia, the profile and the previous behavior of the person, the severity and nature of the offense, the circumstances of the arrest, the method of gathering information, the truth of the information and the fact whether these facts already publicly known were.
The two recent judgments are indeed welcomes in principle from a legal perspective, while also criticized because of the ECHR, the so-called " mere entertainment " still not complied with the empirical findings of Communication Science taboo and the question of the public interest in information regarding entertaining media reports. At the same time the expression and press freedom by this normative determination of the value of information from media reports highly subjective considerations, the judge will award given what the requirement of state neutrality disagree.