## Facts

- A French weekly magazine published an interview with a woman stating she had an intimate relationship with Prince Albert II of Monaco and that he was the father of her child.
- The publication included photographs, including one showing the Prince holding the child.
- Before the issue appeared, the Prince demanded that the magazine refrain from publication; the magazine published anyway with a large print run.
- Similar information and some photos had already been reported in the United Kingdom and circulated online before the French issue’s release.
- The Prince sued in France for violation of his right to respect for private life; during the proceedings he publicly acknowledged paternity.
- French courts held the magazine and its publication director liable, ordering €50,000 in damages and requiring publication of the decision (including prominent publication terms).
- After exhausting domestic remedies, the applicants complained that the judgments and sanctions violated their freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.

## Issues

1. Whether the domestic damages award and publication order constituted an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression under Article 10.
2. Whether the interference, though pursuing the legitimate aim of protecting the Prince’s private life under Article 8, was proportionate and “necessary in a democratic society.”

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held that there was a violation of Article 10.
- It found the domestic courts did not strike a fair balance between the Prince’s Article 8 interests and the applicants’ Article 10 rights.
- The sanctions (damages and compelled publication of the judgment) were significant interferences capable of discouraging public-interest reporting.
- Given the public-interest dimension of the child’s existence and filiation in a hereditary monarchy, the interference was not “necessary in a democratic society.”

## Legal Principles

- When expression conflicts with privacy, courts must balance Articles 8 and 10 using factors including: contribution to a debate of general interest; the person’s notoriety and role; prior conduct; content, form, and effects of publication; method of obtaining the information; and veracity.
- State discretion is narrower where the publication contributes to a matter of general interest, and the press has a protected role in reporting on such matters.
- A head of state or comparable public figure is subject to closer public scrutiny, especially where reporting concerns issues with public implications.
- Reporting that contains private details may still receive strong protection when its core concerns a matter of public interest; decisionmakers must distinguish public-interest facts (e.g., filiation with constitutional or dynastic implications) from purely intimate details.
- Prior public circulation of substantially similar information is relevant in assessing the weight of privacy-based restrictions and the proportionality of remedies.
- Monetary awards and compelled publication measures can have a chilling effect and must be justified by a proportionate, reasoned balancing of competing rights.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber concluded that sanctioning the magazine for publishing an interview and photographs about a reigning prince’s paternity failed the required Article 8/Article 10 balancing, because the core information carried a genuine public-interest dimension and the domestic measures were disproportionate.


Couderc & Hachette Filipacchi Assocs. v. Fr., App. No. 40454/07 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov. 10, 2015)