In Lillo-Stenberg and Sæther v. Norway [2014] ECHR 59 the European Court of Human Rights has held that the publication in 2005 of 'paparazzi' photographs of a private wedding taken from a public place using a telephoto lens did not violate the privacy rights of the couple. The Court affirmed the rejection by the Norwegian Supreme Court of a claim that there had been a violation of Article 8.
The
wedding had taken place on a small island in one of the Norwegian fjords - similar to the vogue in Australia for weddings in national parks, on public beaches and other public venues rather than inside a private location such as a church or residence. The happy couple are celebrities; weekly magazine Se og Hor subsequently published an item that featured photographs such as a snap of the barefooted bride hopping from rock to rock after arriving by open boat, having - quite sensibly - raised her wedding dress above her knees to avoid getting it wet. No one likes a celebrity bride with a sodden dress smeared with seaweed or dead fish. All in all, made for the tabloids and a photographer was a mere 250 metres away with the usual telephoto lens, no doubt not asking whether celebrities and non-celebrities alike have a right not to be caught on the big day.
The couple took action against the magazine in Oslo District Court and the High Court but in 2008 the Supreme Court found for Se og Hor, with the majority holding that there was no violation of privacy on the basis that the wedding took in a place that was publicly accessible, the text and the photos contained nothing offensive or damaging to the couple's reputation, and the snaps did not show the most intimate part of the wedding.
In 2009 the couple lodged an application in the Court of Human Rights. In relying on Article 8 they complained that their right to respect for private life had been breached by the Supreme Court’s judgment. The ECHRs judgment of 16 January 2014 notes the need to strike a fair balance between the right to protection of their private life under Article 8 and the publisher's right to freedom of expression under Article 10, identified in Von Hannover v. Germany (No. 2) [2012] ECHR 228 and Axel Springer v Germany [2012] ECHR 227.
The Court indicated that the couple “were well known performing artists and accordingly public figures.”. It also accepted that there was an element of general interest about in the applicant’s wedding. It noted that “the mere fact of having cooperated with the press on previous occasions cannot serve as an argument for depriving the party concerned of all protection against publication of the article and the photographs at issue” and endorsed the Supreme Court's statement that “the protection of privacy is no weaker for well-known cultural personalities than it is for others”.
The ECHR noted that the couple did not consent to the taking of the photographs, which were made by a photographer who was “hiding and using a strong telephoto lens”. However, “the ceremony took place in an area that was accessible to the public, easily visible, and a popular holiday location" and "was likely to attract attention by third parties“. "Both the majority and the minority of the Norwegian Supreme Court carefully balanced the right of freedom of expression with the right to respect for private life, and explicitly took into account the criteria set out in the Court’s case‑law which existed at the relevant time”. There was no violation of Article 8.
