## Facts

- Caroline von Hannover, a Monaco national, was repeatedly photographed in Germany without consent while conducting ordinary daily activities (e.g., shopping, sports, vacations, dining, and accompanying her children).
- German tabloid magazines published the photos, many taken covertly by paparazzi, including at a distance and without her awareness.
- She sought injunctions and damages in German courts to stop publication of the photographs.
- German courts applied a doctrine treating her as an “absolute” public figure, generally permitting publication of photos taken in public places, while affording stronger protection for images involving her children or taken in more secluded settings.
- The Federal Constitutional Court largely refused broader injunctions against publication of photos depicting her alone in public.
- She filed an application alleging Germany failed to protect her private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

## Issues

1. Whether Germany breached its positive obligations under Article 8 by failing to provide effective protection against publication of paparazzi photographs depicting the applicant’s private life.
2. How to balance Article 8 privacy interests against Article 10 freedom of expression where the subject is a well-known public figure who performs no official state functions.
3. Whether photographs of ordinary daily activities in public places can fall within “private life” for Article 8 purposes when publication is repeated and primarily curiosity-driven.

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights unanimously found a violation of Article 8.
- The Court held that the domestic courts gave decisive weight to the applicant’s public-figure status and permitted publication of photos that related essentially to private life and did not contribute to a debate of general interest.
- The Court concluded Germany failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s right to respect for private life and the publishers’ Article 10 rights.
- The Court awarded just satisfaction under Article 41 (moral damages and costs).

## Legal Principles

- “Private life” under Article 8 is broad and can include aspects of daily life occurring in public places, particularly where an individual is persistently photographed and the material is systematically disseminated.
- Article 8 imposes positive obligations on states to provide and apply a legal framework that effectively protects private life in disputes between private parties, including against unjustified media intrusions.
- In balancing Articles 8 and 10, key considerations include: whether publication contributes to a debate of general interest; the subject’s role in public affairs; the nature of the information (private details vs. public-interest reporting); the manner of obtaining the material (covert or harassing methods); and the impact on the individual’s private and family life.
- Treating a person as an “absolute” public figure cannot, by itself, justify broad permission to publish images of purely private activities; states must ensure a context-specific assessment rather than a status-based rule.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Germany did not provide effective protection for the applicant’s private life where tabloid publications repeatedly printed covertly obtained photographs of her everyday activities that served entertainment and curiosity rather than public-interest discourse, thereby breaching Article 8 despite countervailing press-freedom interests under Article 10.


Von Hannover v. Germany (No. 1), 59320/00, 2004-VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 294 (2004)