Von Hannover v Germany was decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 2004 under Application No. 59320/00. The case concerned the scope of the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the extent of a State’s positive obligation to protect individuals from intrusive media reporting.
In Von Hannover v Germany, the Court examined whether German law provided sufficient protection against the publication of photographs of a public figure engaged in everyday activities. The judgment marked an important development in the Court’s approach to privacy, press freedom, and the protection of personality rights.
Background and Facts of Von Hannover v Germany
The applicant in Von Hannover v Germany was Caroline, Princess of Hanover, the eldest daughter of Prince Rainier III of Monaco. For a considerable period, Princess Caroline attempted to prevent German magazines from publishing photographs of her taken during her daily life.
These images typically showed her engaged in ordinary activities such as walking, going on holiday, leaving restaurants, or spending time with companions.
Princess Caroline initiated proceedings before the German courts seeking injunctions against the publication of numerous photographs. Her claims achieved only partial success. The German courts considered her to be a “figure of contemporary society par excellence” and took the view that such a person must tolerate a significant degree of public scrutiny when appearing in public places.
The litigation in Germany ultimately culminated in a judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court on 15 December 1999. The outcome was mixed. Princess Caroline succeeded in restraining the republication of two specific groups of photographs but failed in relation to others.
The first group of photographs that were restrained showed Princess Caroline with her then partner, the actor Vincent Lindon. These photographs were taken in a secluded area of a restaurant courtyard and were apparently obtained secretly. The courts accepted that, in this setting, she could reasonably expect privacy. An injunction against republication was granted by the Federal Court of Justice.
The second group concerned photographs that included her children. The Federal Court of Justice initially refused an injunction, but the Federal Constitutional Court set aside that decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration. Subsequently, the publishing company undertook not to republish these images.
However, the remaining photographs were permitted to be published. These images did not include her children and showed Princess Caroline merely going about her daily life in public spaces. The German courts held that, in such circumstances, she had no legitimate expectation of privacy.
Further attempts by Princess Caroline to restrain republication of these photographs were unsuccessful, leading her to bring the case before the European Court of Human Rights in Von Hannover v Germany.
Issue Before the European Court of Human Rights
The central question in Von Hannover v Germany was whether Germany had breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to provide adequate protection for Princess Caroline’s private life against the publication of photographs taken during her daily life.
The case did not concern direct State action but rather the adequacy of domestic legal protections against interference by private media actors.
Von Hannover v Germany Judgment of the Court
On 24 June 2004, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a unanimous judgment in Von Hannover v Germany, finding that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court accepted that the photographs in question depicted activities such as engaging in sport, walking, leaving restaurants, or being on holiday.
It emphasised that such activities formed part of the applicant’s private life, even though they occurred in public places.
The Court stressed that the primary purpose of Article 8 was “to ensure the development, without outside interference, of the personality of each individual in his relations with other human beings.” It explained that the concept of private life includes a “zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context,” which may fall within the scope of Article 8.
Accordingly, the Court had no doubt that the publication of photographs showing Princess Caroline in her daily life fell within the scope of her private life.
Positive Obligations Under Article 8
A key aspect of the reasoning in Von Hannover v Germany was the Court’s reiteration that Article 8 does not merely require States to refrain from arbitrary interference. It may also impose positive obligations to ensure effective respect for private and family life.
These obligations can extend to relations between private individuals and may require States to adopt measures protecting individuals against abuse by others.
The Court specifically noted that this principle applies to the protection of a person’s image. The case therefore turned on whether the German legal framework and its application by domestic courts sufficiently protected Princess Caroline’s private life against intrusion by the press.
Balancing Privacy and Freedom of Expression
In Von Hannover v Germany, the Court observed that the case did not involve the dissemination of ideas or contribution to political debate. Instead, it concerned the publication of images containing very personal, and potentially intimate, information about an individual.
The Court noted that photographs published in tabloid media are often taken in a climate of continual harassment, creating a strong sense of intrusion or even persecution for the person concerned.
The Court rejected the argument that the photographs contributed to a debate of general interest. It emphasised that the images related solely to details of Princess Caroline’s private life and were not connected to the exercise of any official function or public debate.
In support of its reasoning, the Court referred to a 1998 resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe concerning the right to privacy, which had been adopted in the context of growing concerns about intrusive media practices.
Criticism of the German Approach
A significant feature of Von Hannover v Germany was the Court’s criticism of the German concept of a “figure of contemporary society par excellence.” The Court disapproved of the notion that such individuals must accept constant scrutiny unless they retreat to secluded places and prove their privacy expectations in court.
It rejected the idea that public figures should be photographed systematically at almost any time and that such photographs may be widely disseminated even when they relate exclusively to private life.
The Court concluded that the criteria applied by the German courts to protect Princess Caroline’s privacy were insufficient. As a result, Germany had failed to fulfil its positive obligations under Article 8.
Outcome
The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a breach of Article 8 in Von Hannover v Germany. The judgment confirmed that individuals, including public figures, are entitled to protection of their private life against intrusive media coverage, even when they are in public places.
Concurring Opinions
Although the judgment in Von Hannover v Germany was unanimous, two judges filed concurring opinions. Judge Cabral Barreto agreed with the outcome but took the view that information about the life of a public figure can contribute to a debate of general interest. He emphasised the importance of examining, on a case-by-case basis, whether there was a legitimate expectation of privacy.
Judge Zupančič also agreed with the result but highlighted the difficulty of drawing a strict boundary between public and private life. He stressed the need for balance and criticised what he described as making a “fetish” of press freedom. In his view, the decisive question was whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in the particular circumstances.
Conclusion
The decision in Von Hannover v Germany clarified the scope of Article 8 and reinforced the idea that private life may extend into public spaces. It established important principles concerning the State’s positive obligations to protect individuals from intrusive media practices.
The case also influenced later jurisprudence, including subsequent related cases concerning Princess Caroline, in which the Court further refined the balance between privacy rights and freedom of expression.
In summary, Von Hannover v Germany represents a landmark authority on privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights, confirming that the protection of private life applies not only against State interference but also where States fail to prevent unjustified intrusion by the press.