European Court of Human Rights
10 November 2015
Facts
A newspaper published an article containing disclosures of a woman claiming that the father of her son was the reigning prince of Monaco and giving details about their relationship. The prince brought proceeding against the applicants, the publication director and publishing company of the magazine, seeking compensation for violation of his privacy and infringement of his right to the protection of his own image. The French courts granted his request.
Complaint
The applicants alleged that there had been an unjustified breach of their right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court admitted that the judgment against the applicants amounted to an interference with their right to freedom of expression. This interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the right to privacy of the Prince. The question was whether this interference was necessary in a democratic society. The Court went through the different criteria used in its previous case law to assess the proportionality of the interference:
- The disputed article contributed to a debate on a matter of general interest, namely the rules of succession in the Monarchy.
- The Prince was a public figure and his expectation that his private life would be protected was limited because of his notoriety and past conduct
- The means by which the information was obtained were not problematic as the mother of the child had voluntarily contacted the newspaper.
- The veracity of the statements had not been contested by the Prince, and the photographs, despite being published without his consent, had been taken with his knowledge and did not show him in an unfavourable light.
- The tone of the interview was measured and non-sensationalist.
The Court concluded that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression was not justified by the protection of the Prince’s private life and therefore violated Article 10.