## Facts

- A German magazine published an article about celebrities renting out holiday homes, describing the von Hannover family’s Kenyan island villa and including photos of the property.
- The magazine also published a single holiday photograph showing Princess Caroline of Monaco and her husband in a leisure setting with others; the image did not disclose the location or sensitive personal details.
- The photograph was taken without the couple’s knowledge or consent.
- Princess Caroline sought an injunction in Germany to prevent further publication of the photograph, alleging an unjustified intrusion into her private life.
- German courts reached differing outcomes: an injunction was granted at first instance; later appellate review and ultimately the Federal Court of Justice (on remittal after constitutional review) refused the injunction, emphasizing the accompanying article’s general-interest aspect.
- Princess Caroline applied to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging Germany failed to meet its positive obligations to protect private life under Article 8.

## Issues

1. Whether Germany violated Article 8 by refusing to enjoin further publication of the applicant’s holiday photograph.
2. Whether domestic courts properly balanced the applicant’s Article 8 privacy rights against the press’s Article 10 freedom of expression, applying established criteria for photo-publication disputes involving public figures.

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights held there was no violation of Article 8.
- The Court found Germany did not exceed its margin of appreciation in concluding that press freedom outweighed the applicant’s interest in preventing further publication.
- The Court accepted that the domestic courts applied the relevant Article 8/10 balancing criteria and gave reasoned decisions.

## Legal Principles

- In disputes between private individuals and the press, the state’s Article 8 duty is assessed through whether domestic courts struck a fair balance between Article 8 and Article 10.
- Key factors in the balancing include:
  - contribution to a debate of general interest;
  - the notoriety of the person and the subject matter;
  - prior conduct of the person concerned;
  - the content, form, and consequences of the publication; and
  - the circumstances in which the photo was taken.
- A neutral image of a public figure in a public or semi-public setting, revealing no intimate facts, may warrant less protection than images exposing the inner sphere of private life.
- An injunction barring future publication is a serious interference with Article 10; refusing such relief may be proportionate where the intrusion into private life is limited and the publication is linked to general-interest reporting.
- Where national courts explicitly apply the established balancing criteria and provide adequate reasons, the Court generally defers absent a manifestly unreasonable outcome.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that Germany satisfied its Article 8 positive obligations because domestic courts reasonably balanced privacy and expression, treating the holiday image as a limited intrusion that could accompany an article capable of contributing to public discussion, and finding a blanket injunction disproportionate.


Von Hannover v. Germany (No. 3), App. No. 8772/10, Eur. Ct. H.R. (Sept. 19, 2013)