Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber
11 March 2020
Facts
An article advertised on the front cover of a magazine reported on the romantic stay of two former ministers, twenty days after their joint resignation from the government. This article was illustrated with four photographs of the ministers concerned. Alleging a violation of their right to private life and respect for their image, the ministers brought proceedings against the magazine, seeking compensation. The Court accepted the ministers’ claim, condemned the magazine to pay 9,000 euros in damages, and prohibited the company from distributing the magazine. The company appealed against this decision before the Court of cassation.
Complaint
The magazine complained that the court’s decision violated its right to freedom of expression.
Court’s ruling
The Court explained that a person’s sentimental life is, in principle, of a strictly private nature. While there is a right of the public to be informed, which may sometimes relate to private aspects of public persons’ lives, publications whose sole purpose is to satisfy the curiosity of the readers about details of a person’s private life cannot be regarded as contributing to a debate of general interest. Therefore, an interference with a public figure’s private life can be justified by the public’s right to information only if the subject in question is of general interest and if the information contained in the publication is such as to contribute to the public debate on that subject.
In this case, the Court noted that although the resignation of the ministers from the government was a matter of general interest, the article was devoted solely to the revelation of their romantic relationship and their private stay in the United States. The article did not make any reference to the consequences of that relationship for the two ministers’ political positions and ambitions, or to the political debate that arose following their resignation. The Court therefore concluded that the content of the article was not contributing to the public debate on this subject, and therefore had violated the ministers’ right to respect for their private life and image.