The 'von Hannover' is Princess Caroline of Monaco, litigant in von Hannover v Germany (2004) 40 EHRR 1, the landmark European Union privacy case.
The current case originated in two applications against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the EU Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Monegasque national Princess Caroline von Hannover and German national Prince Ernst August von Hannover on 22 August and 15 December 2008 respectively. The applicants alleged that the refusal by the German courts to grant an injunction against any further publication of photos of them infringed their right to respect for their private life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.
Princess Caroline and her husband Ernst August von Hannover had taken exception to publication by Frau im Spiegel magazine of a photographs showing them on a skiing holiday in St Moritz in 2002. The photo was accompanied by an article on Caroline's ailing father Prince Rainier of Monaco, which included the statement -
The first magnolia buds are flowering in the grounds of Monaco Palace – but Prince Rainier (78) appears to have no interest in the burgeoning spring. He goes for a walk outside with his daughter Stéphanie (37). She supports him as he walks along slowly. He is cold despite the sunshine. The old gentleman is weary. The Monacans saw their prince for the last time three weeks ago at a circus festival. He had appeared bright and cheerful, walking along beside his daughter who was laughing. But since then he has not left the palace. Not even for the Saint Devote celebration held in honour of the national patron saint. The country is worried, as are Prince Rainier’s children. Prince Albert (who is currently taking part in the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City), Princess Caroline (on holiday in St. Moritz with Prince Ernst August von Hannover) and Princess Stéphanie take it in turns to look after their father. He must not be left alone at home when he is not well. Not without his children’s love.The German courts held that the report concerned a topic of general interest and that the public had a legitimate interest in learning about the behaviour of Rainier's children during his illness.
In the first instance the German Federal Court of Justice indicated that although the press could, as a matter of principle, make its own decision regarding the content of its publications and the applicants had indeed been in a public place amongst other people, neither the article nor the photo related to an event of general interest or contemporary society. A celebrity’s holidays fell within the core area of his/her private sphere. The publication of the article and photo had been for entertainment purposes only and was not in any way relevant to matters of public interest, so could only be done with Ms Hannover's consent. A second photo exclusively related to her private life and - because it only served entertainment purposes - could not be published without her consent. However, the Court noted that although another photo - that at the heart of the dispute decided by the ECHR - contained "no information having any connection with an event of contemporary society or contributing to a debate of general interest", the accompanying text was of public interest -
The information also concerned the ill-health of the reigning Prince of Monaco. His ill-health was thus an event of contemporary society on which the press was entitled to report. The journalistic quality and the conception of the article are not decisive because the principle of the freedom of the press does not allow the applicability of a fundamental right to depend upon the quality of the press coverage or how the article is drafted. This also applies to the comments in the article on the conduct of members of the family during the prince’s illness, and, moreover, the applicant has not complained about the article in that respect. The photo in question supports and illustrates the information being conveyed.Accordingly, the Hannovers were not able to prevent publication of the photo. In particular nothing about the actual photo had constituted a violation of privacy; there was nothing to suggest that the photo had been taken surreptitiously or through use of an illicit surveillance device that would have rendered its publication unlawful. That conclusion was endorsed on appeal to the German Federal Constitutional Court.
Princess Caroline and her husband disagreed, claiming that the refusal by the German courts to grant an injunction against any further publication of the photos infringed the right to respect for their private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The ECHR concluded that -
The Court observes that, in accordance with their case-law, the national courts 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 attached fundamental importance to the question whether the photos, considered in the light of the accompanying articles, had contributed to a debate of general interest. They also examined the circumstances in which the photos had been taken.
The Court also observes that the national courts explicitly took account of the Court’s relevant case-law. Whilst the Federal Court of Justice had changed its approach following the Von Hannover judgment, the Federal Constitutional Court, for its part, had not only confirmed that approach, but also undertaken a detailed analysis of the Court’s case-law in response to the applicants’ complaints that the Federal Court of Justice had disregarded the Convention and the Court’s case-law.
In those circumstances, and having regard to the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national courts when balancing competing interests, the Court concludes that the latter have not failed to comply with their positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention. Accordingly, there has not been a violation of that provision.
