Council of Europe: Von Hannover v. Germany

International Journal of Constitutional Law

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 533-539

  Rudolf, Beate ^a  

^a FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746097399     PISSN: 14742640     EISSN: 14742659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/icon/mol024     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, 2004-VI ECHR 294, available at www.echr.coe.int/eng [hereinafter, Von Hannover].
2. Hereinafter, the term "article," unless otherwise specified, refers to those of the European Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 UNTS 221, as amended by Protocol No. 11, 155 ETS (1994) (also available at http://conventions.coe.int) (entered into force November 1, 1998). The right to privacy is enshrined in article 8.
3. For details, see Hans Leyendecker, Genug ist genug [Enough is enough], Süddeutsche Zeitung, Sept. 9, 2004, at 31.
4. Göbrgülü v. Naumburg Higher Regional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04, paras. 58-59, available at www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.
5. For an analysis, see Rainer Hoffman, The German Federal Constitutional Court and Public International Law: New Decisions, New Approaches?, 47 Germ. Yb. Int'l. L. 9 (2004).
6. So-called "absolute Personen der Zeitgeschichte" (figures of contemporary society par excellence) under section 23(1) of the Copyright (Arts Domain) Act [Kunsturheberrechtsgesetz], v. 7.1.1907 (RGBI S.7), as amended. For an analysis of the concepts underlying German law; see Katharina von Basswitz, Hard Times for Paparazzi: Two Landmark Decisions Concerning Privacy Rights Stir Up the German and English Media, 35 Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L. 642 (2004).
7. Judgment of Dec. 19, 1995 (case no. VI ZR 15/95), 131 BGHZ 332 (1995).
8. Judgment of Dec. 15, 1999 (case no. 1 BvR 653/96), 101 BVerfGE 361 (1999), with reference to article 6 of the Basic Law, which reads: "(1) Marriage and family enjoy the special protection of the State. (2) The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them (...). "
9. Von Hannover para. 50, with reference to P.G. and J.H. v. United Kingdom, 2001-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. para. 56,
10. and Peck v. United Kingdom, 2003-1 Eur. Ct. H.R. para. 57.
11. Positive obligations were first recognized in Marckx v. Belgium, 31 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 15 (1973).
12. Von Hannover para. 57, with reference to: X. and Y. v. the Netherlands, 91 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 11, para. 23 (1985)
13. Sterjna v. Finland, 299-B Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 61, para. 38 (1994)
14. and Verliere v. Switzerland, 2001-VII Eur. Ct. H.R. (admissibility decision).
15. Von Hannover, at para. 43.
16. Id. at para. 59.
17. Id. at para. 60.
18. Id. at para. 65.
19. Id. at para. 25,
20. giving the English translation of 101 BVerfGE 361 (1999), supra note 7.
21. Id. at para. 42, reprinting of Resolution 1165 (1998) para. 8, on the right to privacy. This nonbinding resolution was adopted shortly after the death of Lady Diana, Princess of Wales.
22. Id. at para. 66,
23. with reference to Prisma Presse v. France, decision of July 1. 2003 (publication forthcoming).
24. Von Hannover, at para. 70, with reference to Amann v. Switzerland [GC], 2000-II Eur. Ct. H.R., paras. 65-67:
25. Rotaru v. Romania [GC], 2000-V Eur. C.H.R., para. 43-44
26. P.G. and H.J. v. United Kingdom, 2001-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. paras. 57-60
27. and Peck v. United Kingdom, 2003-I Eur. Ct. H.R., paras. 59-63 and 78, mostly dealing with new communication technologies.
28. Von Hannover, at paras. 74-75.
29. Id. at para. 66, with reference to Prisma Presse, supra note 17.
30. For attempts to prevent the publication of information on politicians and high-ranking managers in the wake of the decision, see Thomas Tuma, Kritik nicht gestattet, [Criticism not permitted], Der Spiegel, Sept. 2004, at 24.
31. See also Andreas Heldrich, Persönlichkeitsschutz und Pressefreiheit nach der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention [Protection of the personality right and freedom of the press according to the European Convention on Human Rights], 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2634, 2635 (2004).
32. See, e.g., markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Behrmann v. Germany, 165 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 26 (1989) (information of a commercial nature)
33. and Müller and Others v. Germany, 133 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 27 (1988) (painting and exhibition of a painting).
34. Concurring opinion Zupančič, J., von Hannover.
35. See also concurring opinion Cabral Barreto, J., von Hannover.
36. See, e.g., Von Hannover, at para. 72.
37. For criticism of this yardstick, see also Dorothee Bölke, Der Druck beginnt schon [The pressure is already beginning], Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Sept. 22, 2004, at 38.
38. Von Hannover para. 69, with reference to Halford v. United Kingdom, 1997-VII Rep. of Judgments and Decesions 1016, para. 45. For both concurring judges, this is the determining factor; see concurring opinion Barreto, J., and concurring opinion Zupančič, J.
39. See also Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG v. Austria, judgment of February 26, 2002, para. 37 (decisive criterion being entry into a public area) (publication forthcoming).
40. Argument brought forward by the intervening German media corporations, see von Hannover, at para. 47. This contention was not substantiated by any facts reported in the judgments of the German courts.
41. Von Hannover concurring opinion Zupančič, J., in fine.
42. The Federal Constitutional Court referred to exclusivity contracts only in general terms but not with respect to the applicant; see supra note 7, para. 82.
43. For this view, see the references in Günter Herrmann, Note on the Judgment of the ECHR of June 24, 2004, 48 Zeitschrift Für Urheber- Und Medienrecht 665, 665-6 (2004)
44. Leyendecker, supra note 3
45. and Bölke, supra note 27.
46. Plon (Société) v. France, judgment of May 18, 2004, para. 53 (publication forthcoming).
47. See, e.g., Oberschlick v. Austria Judgment (No. 2), 1997-IV Rep. of Judgments and Decisions, §29
48. Nilsen and Johansen v. Norway [GC], 1999-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R., §52,
49. and Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria, Judgment of Feb. 26, 2002, para. 52.
50. Karhuvaara and Iltahehti v. Finland, judgment of November 16, 2004 (publication forthcoming). The information concerned the husband's criminal conviction for drunken and disorderly behavior and assault of a policeman. The fact became the subject of a political satire on the main national television channel.