## Facts

- A well-known German television actor was arrested at a public festival for possession of a small quantity of cocaine.
- A newspaper published two articles: one reporting the arrest (including the actor’s name and photographs) and a later article reporting the ensuing criminal proceedings, including confession and conviction.
- The reporting relied on information obtained from official sources (police officers and a public prosecutor) and was not found to be inaccurate.
- The actor sought civil-law protection of personality rights in German courts, claiming interference with privacy and reputation.
- German courts issued injunctions barring further publication of the articles and imposed related consequences, prioritizing the actor’s privacy interests over the publisher’s expression interests.
- The publisher applied to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging the domestic measures violated its right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the injunctions and related measures constituted an interference with the publisher’s freedom of expression under Article 10.
2. Whether the interference, though lawful and aimed at protecting the actor’s reputation and private life, was “necessary in a democratic society” under Article 10(2).
3. Whether domestic courts struck a fair balance between Article 8 (private life and reputation) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) in restricting press reporting on criminal proceedings involving a public figure.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held, by 12–5, that the domestic injunctions and related measures interfered with Article 10 rights.
- The Court accepted the interference was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims (protection of reputation and rights of others).
- The Court held the interference was not necessary in a democratic society and therefore violated Article 10.
- In balancing Articles 8 and 10, the Court emphasized factors including: contribution to a matter of general interest; the person’s public profile and prior conduct; the method of obtaining and verifying the information; the content and impact of publication; and the severity and potential chilling effect of sanctions.

## Legal Principles

- Article 8 and Article 10 warrant equal respect; outcomes should not depend on whether the claim is framed under privacy or expression.
- Limits on press freedom require strict scrutiny, and the need for restrictions must be convincingly shown.
- Reporting on criminal offenses and criminal proceedings may contribute to a matter of general public interest, particularly where it concerns a well-known figure and events occurring in public.
- Accurate reporting based on information from official sources, obtained without improper means, weighs strongly in favor of Article 10 protection and “responsible journalism.”
- Naming and photographing a person can intensify interference with private life, but publication of public judicial facts about an arrest and conviction is not equivalent to disclosure of intimate private details.
- Article 8 protection of reputation does not extend to preventing foreseeable reputational consequences of one’s own unlawful conduct.
- Even non-severe sanctions, including injunctions against further publication, can create a chilling effect and may be disproportionate where they suppress lawful, accurate reporting on matters of public interest.

## Conclusion

The Court found that Germany’s injunctions and related measures disproportionately restricted a publisher’s freedom to report, accurately and from official sources, on a well-known actor’s public arrest and subsequent conviction, and thus violated Article 10 of the Convention.


Axel Springer AG v. Ger., App. No. 39954/08 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 7, 2012)