European Court of Human Rights
23 July 2009
Facts
The applicant is a publishing company who published an article about the singer Johnny Hallyday, illustrated by four photographs, one showing him on stage and the others being advertising material for products which he had allowed his name and image to be associated. The article focused on his financial difficulties which had obliged him to cash in on his image. The singer took action against the applicant which was ordered to pay damages for violating the singer’s right to private life. The national court found that the applicant had misused the photograph for a purpose other than that for which the singer had authorised its publication.
Complaint
The applicant complained that its conviction violated its freedom of expression.
Court’s ruling
The Court found that there was an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, which had been prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others, namely the right to respect for his private life.
Regarding the proportionality of the interference to the aim pursued, the Court found that the article and photos could not be regarded as contributing to a debate on a matter of general interest. But the Court then disagreed with the national courts, arguing that the fact that the applicant misused the photograph of the singer was not sufficient on its own to justify the conviction of the applicant. The Court noted in particular the nature of the pictures published which had been purely promotional and had not been taken fraudulently. Moreover, the information disclosed in the article about the way the singer managed and spent his money had already been revealed publicly by the singer himself. This disclosure had weakened the degree of protection to which he was entitled as regards his private life, as it was by then widely known news. This was a decisive factor in assessing the balance between the applicant’s freedom of expression and the singer’s right to a private life. Therefore, the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had not been necessary in a democratic society and the Court ruled that there was a violation of Article 10.