Caroline judgments

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The private life of the Caroline Princess of Hanover , then Caroline of Monaco , was often the subject of coverage by the tabloids . Since the beginning of the 1990s, the princess, with the help of lawyers, initially on a national level in Germany, consistently took action against the publication of paparazzi photographs from her private life. There were several lawsuits that went through all instances up to the Federal Court of Justice , the Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights . Several of the judgments are known as the Caroline judgments .

The ruling passed by the European Court of Human Rights in 2004 resulted in considerable restrictions for the entire European press in the possibilities of reporting on details from the private lives of celebrities .

Federal Court of Justice 1995

BGH , VI ZR 15/95, December 19, 1995

In this process, Princess Caroline had before the Hamburg Regional Court the Burda publishing house sued after the magazines Freizeit Revue and Bunte in Germany and France had published several photographs, which they own and also together with the actor Vincent Lindon showed their children or bystanders .

The regional court upheld the claim insofar as it concerned sales in France - but dismissed the claim in relation to Germany. Both parties appealed against this judgment, whereby the Higher Regional Court dismissed the action in its entirety. Against the princess put Revision one before the Federal Court.

The BGH ruled that the publication of the pictures in which the princess and Vincent Lindon could be seen while visiting a garden restaurant was inadmissible, whereas the publication of all other pictures would not be objectionable. The court initially relied on the right to one's own picture according to § 22 KunstUrhG ( law on copyright in works of the fine arts and photography , also called KUG), but assumed for the majority of the pictures that their publication according to § 23 Para. 1 KunstUrhG is permissible because the princess is a person of contemporary history.

For the reasons of the decision:

"For the classification of a person as absolutely contemporary it is decisive that the public opinion finds pictorial works about them as significant and worthy of attention for the sake of the person portrayed, and that the general public must therefore be granted an interest in a pictorial representation justified by a real need for information ( BGHZ 20, 345, 349 f .; 24, 200, 208; Senate judgment of December 12, 1995 - VI ZR 223/94 - intended for publication). These include above all monarchs , heads of state and prominent politicians (see KG JW 1928, 363 - Kaiser Wilhelm II .; AG Ahrensböck DJZ 1920, 596 - Reich President Ebert and Reichswehr Minister Noske ; Senate judgment of November 14, 1995 - VI ZR 410/94 - Federal Chancellor - intended for publication; OLG Munich UFITA 41 [1964], 322 - Chancellor candidate ).
This group of people also includes the plaintiff as the older sister of the ruling Prince of Monaco. She assumed that herself. This view is also the basis of the Senate judgment of December 12, 1995 (loc. Cit.). "

Principles of the judgment

"1. The right to respect for privacy , which also includes the right to be alone, can also be claimed by a person in contemporary history. "
"2. The protection of privacy, which also extends to the publication of pictures, is not limited to one's own domestic area. "
"3. Outside one's own home, privacy worth protecting can exist if someone has withdrawn into a local seclusion, in which he wants to be objectively recognizable for himself and in which he behaves as he does in the specific situation, trusting the seclusion would not do it in public ”.
"Anyone who publishes pictures that were taken secretly by the person concerned in this situation or by taking advantage of a surprise attack intervenes in this area of ​​protection in an inadmissible manner."
"4. Incidentally, absolute figures in contemporary history have to accept the publication of photographs of themselves, even if they do not show them performing a public function, but affect their private life in a broader sense. "

Federal Constitutional Court 1999

→ Main article: Caroline von Monaco judgment II

BVerfG , 1 BvR 653/96, December 15, 1999

Represented by the lawyer Matthias Prinz , the princess sued the Federal Constitutional Court against the judgment of the BGH. The court decided that in the case of the pictures that also showed the princess's children, “the general right of personality ( Art. 2 Para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 1 Para. 1 GG) strengthening influence of Art. 6 GG (protection of Family, parental rights) ”and referred the action back to the BGH on this point. However, the court dismissed the constitutional complaint regarding the five other photos .

This judgment was regarded as trend-setting until it was declared incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights in 2004 by the European Court of Human Rights .

Principles of the judgment

"1. The private sphere protected by the general right of personality under Article 2, Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law is not limited to the domestic sphere. As a matter of principle, the individual must also have the opportunity to move around other, recognizably secluded locations from photo reporting. "
"2. The general right of personality is not guaranteed in the interest of commercializing one's own person. The protection of the private sphere against images is withdrawn if someone shows himself / herself in agreement that certain matters, which are usually regarded as private, are made public. "
"3. The protective content of the general personal right of parents or parents is reinforced by Article 6, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Basic Law, as far as the publication of images is concerned, which has the specific parental turn to the children as its subject. "
"4. The guarantee of freedom of the press contained in Article 5, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the Basic Law also includes entertaining publications and contributions as well as their illustrations. In principle, this also applies to the publication of images that show people in public life in everyday or private contexts. "

European Court of Human Rights 2004 (Small Chamber)

ECHR , complaint no. 59320/00, June 24, 2004 (EGMR NJW 2004, 2647 ff.)

Princess Caroline did not want to accept the judgment and appealed to the European Court of Human Rights - again represented by the Prince.

The European Court of Human Rights finally decided that the publication of the pictures violated the right to respect for private life ( Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ).

The resulting claim for damages was agreed out of court. In 2005, the German federal government paid Caroline damages for insufficient protection by the German courts, as well as reimbursement of costs. The total payment was € 115,000.

From the verdict summary

“Freedom of expression also applies to the publication of photos, but in this area the protection of the reputation and rights of others is particularly important, as this is not about spreading 'ideas', but about images that contain very personal or even intimate information about a person. In addition, the photos published in the tabloids are often taken under conditions that amount to constant harassment and are perceived by the person concerned as an intrusion into their private life, if not even as persecution. "
“The decisive criterion for the balance between protection of private life on the one hand and freedom of expression on the other hand is, in the view of the Court, the extent to which the published photos contribute to a debate in which a general interest can be asserted. In the present case, these are photos from the everyday life of Caroline von Hannover, i.e. photos that show her doing purely private activities. In this regard, the Court takes note of the context in which the photos were taken, namely without the applicant's knowledge, without her consent and sometimes in secret. These photos cannot be regarded as contributing to a debate of general public interest , since the complainant is not holding any public office and the photos and articles in dispute concern only details of her private life. "
“Furthermore, while the public may have a right to be informed, a right which in special circumstances may extend to the private lives of public figures, such a right does not exist in the present case. In the view of the Court, the public cannot have a legitimate interest in knowing where Caroline von Hannover is and how she generally behaves in her private life, even when she goes to places that cannot always be described as secluded, and even if she is a well known personality. And even if there is such a public interest, as well as a commercial interest of the magazines which publish the photos and the articles, in the view of the Court in the present case these interests have to subordinate the applicant's right to effective protection of her private life. "

Effects

Matthias Prinz , Princess Caroline's lawyer, was delighted with the “wonderful decision” and said: “It was crucial to create more freedom here. We have to ensure that the guarantee of privacy that the European Convention on Human Rights offers every European citizen applies to everyone. For all citizens, even if they are more prominent ”.

The entire European press, especially the tabloids, were dismayed and on the same day the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung even headlined Europe's judges overrule the freedom of the press . The judgment was also heavily criticized in larger parts of the legal scholarship - it is feared that the so-called “boulevard” reporting could now be restricted if the public interest in information had to be traced back to a serious debate. On the other hand, judgments of the ECHR would only have the rank of simple national law.

The fears of the tabloids that the European Court of Human Rights had paved the way for extensive “ censorship ” of the mass media did not ultimately come true, but led to a significant decrease in paparazzi images in the media. Matthias Prinz later said: “The photos that we have seen every year over the past few years are completely empty, that is, when you keep seeing the same clients of ours in the same bathing trunks and bikinis again and again walking along the beach, wherever there is really no statement left, we saw less of these pictures this year, because they are really no longer justifiable at all. "

On the other hand, the publication of recordings that had previously been considered legitimate was made more difficult or impossible, for example in the case of Manager Magazin , which reported on the Merckle Group (ratiopharm): Reporters had reporters on the open day , to which journalists were also allowed of the magazine also took pictures by Ludwig Merckle . However, Merckle sued the publication and was right.

Specifically, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 2004 ultimately led the Federal Court of Justice to revise the concept of absolute and relative persons in contemporary history in its decision of March 6, 2007, which brought together three injunction actions by Caroline von Hannovers against two magazines. In place of the fixed prerequisites, there is now an individual decision as to whether a figure is considered to be historically relevant. The Federal Constitutional Court confirmed this view of the BGH as being compatible with the constitution in a decision of February 26, 2008.

European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), judgments of February 7, 2012

ECHR , Grand Chamber, judgment of February 7, 2012, Az. 40660/08 and 60641/08 (Von Hannover II)

ECHR , Grand Chamber, judgment of February 7, 2012 (Axel Springer AG) , Az. 39954/08

The ECHR (Grand Chamber) confirmed these results of recent German case law in a judgment of February 7, 2012. He emphasized that, depending on the circumstances of the individual case, a public interest in information could also exist in sports topics or performing artists, but not in the case of alleged marital problems of a state president or financial problems of a well-known singer. The illness of the ruling Prince of Monaco should have been seen as an event from the field of contemporary history. In general, people unknown to the public require greater protection than people known to the public. The ECHR also found that Caroline and Ernst August von Hannover are public figures.

In parallel proceedings, the ECHR had to decide on the admissibility of reporting on drug use by a German actor. He emphasized that the public interest in reporting on criminal proceedings can vary. The weighing criteria for this question included: a. the familiarity and previous behavior of the person, the gravity and nature of the act, the circumstances of the arrest, the method of obtaining information, the truth of the information and the fact whether these facts were already publicly known. In this case, the reporting was not sensational or derogatory, but correct, the arrest had taken place in public and had been confirmed by the investigative authorities and the actor had already sought the public with many interviews and admitted to a previous drug offense.

The two most recent judgments are generally welcomed from a jurisprudential perspective, but at the same time also criticized because the ECHR continues to taboo so-called "mere entertainment" and does not consider the empirical findings of communication science when it comes to the question of the public interest in information regarding entertaining media reports. At the same time, this normative determination of the informational value of media reports surrenders freedom of opinion and the press to highly subjective judges' considerations, which contradicts the requirement of state neutrality.

See also

literature

  • Thomas Haug: Photo coverage of celebrities. With special consideration of the admissibility of the judicial assessment of the informational value of media reports. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2011, ISBN 978-3-8329-6528-0 .
  • Thomas Haug: Groundbreaking judgments of the ECHR on press law. Final defeat for Princess Caroline. In: Kommunikation & Recht , No. 3/2012, p. 1.
  • Thomas Haug: On the protection of privacy in image reporting - At the same time comment on the judgment of the ECHR of 19.09.2013, 8772/10 “Von Hannover III” . AfP 2013, 485.
  • Daniel Eckstein, Christian W. Altenhofen: The "Caroline" judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (= writings on national, European and international legal issues . Vol. 1). Iatros-Verlag, Nierstein 2006, ISBN 3-937439-20-X .
  • Volker Messing: The Caroline judgment . Vdm Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken 2007, ISBN 978-3-8364-1441-8 .
  • Hanns Prütting (ed.): The Caroline judgment of the ECHR and the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court (= series of publications by the Institute for Broadcasting Law at the University of Cologne . Vol. 94). Beck, Munich 2005, ISBN 3-406-54305-7 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ BVerfG: Press release no. 140/99 of December 15, 1999: Constitutional complaint from Princess Caroline of Monaco only partially successful ( Memento of the original of June 10, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de
  2. ↑ Spiegel Online: Germany has to pay 115,000 euros
  3. ↑ 3sat Online: "Invitation to censorship - The 'Caroline judgment' is perceived as an attack on freedom of the press"
  4. ↑ Further references from Thomas Haug: Photo coverage of celebrities - with special consideration of the admissibility of the judicial assessment of the informational value of media reports , 2011, p. 94.
  5. ↑ Evidence from Thomas Haug: Photo coverage of celebrities - with special consideration of the admissibility of the judicial assessment of the informational value of media reports , 2011, pp. 89–92.
  6. ↑ consistent case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, cf. BVerfGE 19, 342 ; BVerfGE 22, 254 ; BVerfGE 25, 327 ; BVerfGE 35, 311 ; BVerfGE 74, 358 ; BVerfGE 82, 106 .
  7. ^ BGH judgment of March 6, 2007 , Az. VI ZR 51/06, full text, NJW 2007, 1977.
  8. ^ BGH judgment March 6, 2007, Az. VI ZR 51/06, NJW 2007, 1977.
  9. ↑ BVerfG decision of February 26, 2008 , Az. 1 BvR 1602/07, full text.
  10. ↑ a b Case H. v DEUTSCHLAND (No. 2) (complaints nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08) . European Court of Human Rights. February 7, 2012. Retrieved February 7, 2019.
  11. ↑ a b Case S.AG v DEUTSCHLAND (No. 2) (complaint No. 39954/08) . European Court of Human Rights. February 7, 2012. Retrieved February 7, 2019.
  12. ↑ Christian Rath: ECHR judgments on freedom of the press: Caroline von Monaco rightly snapped , taz.de of February 7, 2012, accessed on June 20, 2019.
  13. ↑ Thomas Haug, landmark judgments of the ECHR on press law - final defeat for Princess Caroline , communication and law, Editorial 3/2012.
  14. ↑ Thomas Haug, landmark judgments of the ECHR on press law - final defeat for Princess Caroline , communication and law, Editorial 3/2012.
  15. ↑ (online)