The case for tolerant constitutional patriotism: The right to privacy before the European Courts

Cornell International Law Journal

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 211-249

  Bignami, Francesca ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 57149147111     PISSN: 00108812     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (300)

1. European Community, Foreign Ministers of the Six European Cmty. Countries, First Report of the Foreign Ministers to the Heads of State and Government of the Member States of the European Community, Part One ¶ 5 (Oct. 27, 1970), reprinted in EUROPEAN FOREIGN POLICY: DOCUMENTS 76 (Christopher Hill & Karen E. Smith eds., 2000).
2. Declaration on the Occasion oj the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Signature of the Treaties of Rome, Mar. 25, 2007, available at www.eu2007.de/de/News/download-docs 'Maerz/0324-RAA/English.pdf.
3. See, e.g., J.H.H. Weiler et al., European Democracy and Its Critique. 18 WEST EUR. POL. Pol. 4 (1995).
4. See Gráinne de Búrca, The Drafting of a Constitution for the European Union: Europe's Madisonian Moment or a Moment of Madness?, 61 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 555, 573 (2004).
5. See Manias Kumm, Why Europeans Will Not Embrace Constitutional Patriotism. 6 INT'L J. CONST. L. 117, 120 (2008).
6. See generally JAN-WERNER MÜLLER, CONSTITUTIONAL PATRIOTISM (2007);
7. JAN-WERNER Müller & Kim Lane Scheppele, Constitutional Patriotism: An Introduction, 6 INT'L J. CONST. L 67 (2008).
8. See Michael Howard, War and Nations, in NATIONALISM 254. 254-55 (John Hutchinson &Anthony D. Smith eds., 1994).
9. See, e.g., J.H.H. Weiler. On the Power of the Word: Europe's Constitutional Iconography, 3 INT'L J. CONST. L. 173, 186-87 (2005).
10. See Francesca Bignami, European Versus American Liberty: A Comparative Privacy Analysis of Antiterrorism Data Mining, 48 B.C. L. REV. 609, 610 (2007)
11. [hereinafter Bignami, European Versus American Liberty].
12. See Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspaper, Ltd., [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] A.C. 457, ¶11 (appeal taken from Eng.) (U.K.);
13. Von Hannover v. Germany, App. No. 59320/00, 40 Eur. H.R. Rep. 1, 23 (2005).
14. Case C-101/01, Criminal Proceedings Against Lindqvist, 2003 E.C.R. I-12971.
15. Von Hannover, 40 Eur. H.R. Rep. 1.
16. Lindqvist, 2003 E.C.R. at I-13024 ("[I]t is for the authorities and courts of the Member States not only to interpret their national law in a manner consistent with Directive 95/46 but also to make sure they do not rely on an interpretation of it which would be in conflict with the fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order or with other general principles of the Community law. . . ."); see also Von Hannover, 40 Eur. H.R. Rep. at 27-29.
17. See, e.g., Eyal Benvenisti, Margin of Appreciation, Consensus and Universal Standards, 31 N.Y.U. J. INT'L L. & Pol. 843, 847 (1999);
18. George Letsas, Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation, 26 Oxford J. LEGAL STUD. 705, 731-32 (2006).
19. See, e.g., Paolo G. Carozza, Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle oj International Human Rights Law, 97 Am. J. INT'L L. 38, 61-63 (2003).
20. See, e.g., Laurence R. Heifer & Anne-Marie Slaughter, Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication, 107 YALE L.J. 273, 315-17 (1997).
21. See Jan-Werner Müller, A 'Thick' Constitutional Patriotism for the EU?: On Morality, Memory and Militancy, in LAW AND DEMOCRACY IN THE POST-NATIONAL UNION 375, 378 (Erik Odvar Eriksen et al. eds., 2006).
22. See id.
23. See id. at 380.
24. Id. at 378.
25. See id. at 380, 382-83.
26. See id.
27. See Jürgen Habermas, Why Europe Needs a Constitution, NEW LEFT REV., Sept.-Oct. 2001, at 5, 15-16 (2001) (outlining philosophical groundwork for the idea now known as constitutional patriotism).
28. See, e.g., Müller, supra note 17, at 380-83 (discussing Habermas).
29. See Habermas, supra note 23, at 16.
30. See id.
31. See id.
32. See, e.g., Jack Knight & James Johnson, Aggregation and Deliberation, 22 POL. THEORY 277 (1994).
33. See Thomas Gehring, Communicative Rationality in European Governance? Interests and Communicative Action in Functionally Differentiated Single Market Regulation, in EUROPEAN GOVERNANCE, DELIBERATION, AND THE QUEST FOR DEMOCRATISATION 54, 74 (Erik O. Eriksen et al. eds., 2003).
34. See William Rehg, Habermas's Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy: An Overview of the Argument, in HANDBOOK OF CRITICAL THEORY 166, 170-71 (David M. Rasmussen ed., 1996).
35. See Gehring, supra note 29, at 69.
36. See, e.g., John P. McCormick, Habermas, Supranational Democracy, and the European Constitution, 2 EUR. CONST. L. REV. 398, 398-99 (2006).
37. See id. at 412-23.
38. EU Constitution: Where Member States Stand, BBC News, March 25, 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3954327.stm.
39. See Kumm, supra note 5, at 120.
40. See generally ROGER GRIFFIN, MODERNISM AND FASCISM: THE SENSE OF A BEGINNING UNDER MUSSOLINI AND HITLER (1995).
41. Jan-Werner Müller, Three Objections to Constitutional Patriotism, 14 CONSTELLATIONS 197, 201 (2007).
42. See J.H.H. Weiler, In Defence of the Status Quo: Europe's Constitutional Sonderweg, in EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONALISM BEYOND THE STATE 7, 7-23 (J.H.H. Weiler & Marlene Wind eds., 2003).
43. See id.
44. See Treaty Establishing the European Community art. 10, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 U.N.T.S. 11.
45. Weiler, supra note 38, at 21.
46. See Francesca Bignami, Creating European Rights: National Values and Supranational Interests, 11 COLUM. J. EUR. L. 241, 272, 279 (2005).
47. See Weiler, supra note 38, at 21-23.
48. See id.
49. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms art. 8, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222.
50. See CLAIRE OVEY & ROBIN WHITE, JACOBS AND WHITE: THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 3 (4th ed. 2006).
51. See Bignami, European Versus American Liberty, supra note 9, at 647-48.
52. See id. at 643.
53. See PAUL CRAIG & GRAINNE DE BURCA, EU LAW: TEXTS, CASES, AND MATERIALS 323-30 (3D ed. 2003).
54. See Bignami, European Versus American Liberty, supra note 9, at 644.
55. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, supra note 45, art. 8.
56. IAIN CAMERON, NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 91-101 (2000).
57. See generally Von Hannover v. Germany, App. No. 59320/00, 40 Eur. H.R. Rep. 1 (2005) (applying Article 8 to case of privacy violation by the media).
58. CAMERON, supra note 52, at 70-101.
59. Segerstedt-Wiberg v. Sweden, App. No. 62332/00, 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 2, ¶¶ 71-72 (2007).
60. Von Hannover, 40 Eur. H.R. Rep. at 23.
61. Francesca Bignami, Privacy and Law Enforcement in the European Union: The Data Retention Directive, 8 CHI. J. INT'L L. 233, 242 (2007) [hereinafter Bignami, Privacy and Law Enforcement].
62. See Amann v Switzerland, 2001-I EUR. CT. H.R. 245, 266.
63. See European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, supra note 45, art. 8.
64. See id.
65. Id.
66. See Bignami, Privacy and Law Enforcement, supra note 57, at 242.
67. Id. at 246.
68. Id.
69. Id.
70. Id.
71. See Case C-317/04 & C-318/04, European Parliament v. Council of the European Union, 2006 E.C.R. I-4721, ¶¶ 227-30.
72. See id. ¶¶ 228-30.
73. Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data art. 5(b), Jan. 28, 1981, Eur. T.S. No. 108 [hereinafter Personal Data Convention]; see COLIN J. BENNETT & CHARLES D. RAAB, THE GOVERNANCE OF PRIVACY: POLICY INSTRUMENTS IN GOLOBAL PERSPECTIVE 72 (2003).
74. Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, http://conventions.coe.int/ Treaty/CommunChercheSig.asp?NT=108&CM=l&DF=&CL=ENG (last visited May 10, 2008) (listing member states that have ratified the Convention).
75. Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, supra note 69, art. 3 ("The Parties undertake to apply this convention to automated personal data files and automatic processing of personal data in the public and private sectors.").
76. Id. art. 5(a).
77. Id. art. 5(b).
78. Id. art. 5(c).
79. Id. art. 6.
80. Id. art. 5(d).
81. Id. art. 7.
82. Id. art. 5 ("Personal data undergoing automatic processing shall be: stored for specified and legitimate purposes and not used in a way incompatible with those purposes. . . .").
83. Id.
84. Id. art. 5(e).
85. Id. arts. 10, 17.
86. Id. arts. 8(a)-8(c).
87. Id. art. 8(c).
88. Id.
89. See AVISHAI MARGALIT, THE DECENT SOCIETY 202-04 (Naomi Goldblum trans., 1996); Stanley I. Benn, Privacy, Freedom, and Respect for Persons, in PRIVACY I, 1-3 (J. Roland Pennock & John W. Chapman eds., 1971).
90. See MARGALIT, supra note 85, at 204; Benn, supra note 85, at 3-4.
91. See NANCY CHANG, SILENCING POLITICAL DISSENT 94-134 (2002); LEWIS P. LAPHAM, GAG RULE: ON THE SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT AND THE STIFLING OF DEMOCRACY 55-67 (2004); Reg Whitaker, After 9/11: A Surveillance State?, in LOST LIBERTIES: ASHCROFT AND THE ASSAULT ON PERSONAL FREEDOM 52, 54-58 (Cynthia Brown ed., 2003).
92. See Francesca Bignami, Towards a Right to Privacy in Transnational Intelligence Networks, 28 MICH. J. INT'L L. 663, 667-69 (2007) [hereinafter Bignami, Towards a Right to Privacy].
93. Id. at 668.
94. See Michael W. Perl, It's Not Always About the Money: Why the State Identity Theft Laws Fail to Adequately Address Criminal Record Identity Theft, 94 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 169, 169-81 (2003); HOLLY W. Towle, Identity Theft: Myths, Methods, and New Law, 30 RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH. LJ. 237, 237-51 (2004).
95. Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, supra note 69, art. 5(b).
96. Id. art. 5(c).
97. Id. art. 5(d).
98. Id. arts. 5(b)-(c), 5(e).
99. Id. art. 5(c), 5(e).
100. Id. art. 6.
101. Id. art. 9.
102. Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, Council, and Commission of April 5, 1977, 1977 O.J. (C 103) 1, 1 ("1. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission stress the prime importance they attach to the protection of fundamental rights, as derived in particular from the constitutions of the Member States and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 2. In the exercise of their powers and in pursuance of the aims of the European Communities they respect and will continue to respect these rights.").
103. Case C-305/05, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone v. Conseil des Ministres, 3 C.M.L.R. 28 (2007).
104. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Dec. 7, 2000, 2000 O.J. (C 364) 1, 8.
105. See, e.g., id. art. 14 (right to education).
106. See id. arts. 7-8.
107. Id. art. 7.
108. Id. art. 8.
109. See generally Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, supra note 69.
110. See, e.g., COLIN J. BENNETT, REGULATING PRIVACY: DATA PROTECTION AND PUBLIC POLICY IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES 164-80 (1992).
111. See id.
112. See Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, Regarding Supervisory Authorities and Transborder Data Flows, Nov. 8, 2001, Europ. T.S. No. 181.
113. Eur. Pari. & Council Directive 95/46, On the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, 1995 O.J. (L 281) 31 (EC), available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice-home/fsj/privacy/law/index-en.htm (follow 'pdf version' Part 1 & Part 2) [hereinafter 1995 Data Protection Directive].
114. For a list of member countries and the status of implementation of the 1995 Directive, see European Commission, Status of Implementation of Directive 95/46 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data, http://ec.europa.eu/justice-home/fsj/privacy/law/implementation-en.htm (last visited Jan. 8, 2008).
115. Compare 1995 Data Protection Directive, supra note 109, with Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, supra note 69.
116. 1995 Data Protection Directive, supra note 109, art. 6.
117. Id. art. 8.
118. Id. art. 12.
119. Id. art. 17.
120. For the sparer provisions of the Personal Data Convention, see Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, supra note 69, art. 6 (special categories of data) ("Personal data revealing racial origin, political opinions or religious or other beliefs, as well as personal data concerning health or sexual life, may not be processed automatically unless domestic law provides appropriate safeguards. The same shall apply to personal data relating to criminal convictions.") and art. 4 (duties of the parties) ("1. Each Party shall take the necessary measures in its domestic law to give effect to the basic principles for data protection set out in this chapter. 2. These measures shall be taken at the latest at the time of entry into force of this convention in respect of that Party.").
121. 1995 Data Protection Directive, supra note 109, art. 7.
122. Id. art. 7(f).
123. Id. arts. 11-13, 26.
124. Id. arts. 9, 13.
125. Id. arts. 10-11.
126. Id. art. 15.
127. Id. arts. 25-26.
128. Id. art. 28.
129. Id.
130. Id. arts. 18-20.
131. Id. art. 28.
132. Id.
133. Id. arts. 24, 28.
134. CHRISTOPHER KUNER, EUROPEAN DATA PRIVACY LAW AND ONLINE BUSINESS 9-12 (2003).
135. 1995 Data Protection Directive, supra note 109, art. 26.
136. See id. art. 30.
137. KUNER, supra note 130, at 9-10.
138. See generally Proposal for a Decision of the Eur. Parl., of the Council and of the Commission on the Regulations and General Conditions for the Performance of the Duties of the European Data Protection Supervisor, COM (2001) 411 final (July 21, 2001).
139. Comm. on Citizens' Freedoms & Rights, Justice & Home Affairs, Report on the First Report on the Implementation of the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC), at 13, COM (2003) 265 final (Feb. 24, 2004).
140. See generally Peter J. Hustinx, Personal Data Protection Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, WARSAW, May 12, 2006, at 132, available at http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/shared/Documents/ EDPS/Publications/Speeches/2006/06-05-12-Art- third-pillar-EN.pdf.
141. See Bignami, Towards a Right to Privacy, supra note 88, at 666-67.
142. Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 Between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the French Republic on the Gradual Abolition of Checks at Their Common Borders, tit. IV, Sept. 22. 2000, 2000 O.J. (L 239) 19.
143. Convention Based on Article K.3 of the Treaty of European Union, on the Establishment of a European Police Office, arts. 2-3. 1995 O.J. (C 316) 2.
144. Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 Setting Up Eurojust with a View to Reinforcing the Fight Against Serious Crime, art. 5, 2002 O.J. (L 63) 1. 3.
145. Council Regulation 515/97, On Mutual Assistance Between the Administrative Authorities of the Member States and Cooperation Between the Latter and the Commission to Ensure the Correct Application of the Law on Customs and Agricultural Matters, art. 30, 1997 O.J. (L 82) 1.
146. Note from Presidency to Delegations on Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the Protection of Personal Data Processed in the Framework of Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (Mar. 13, 2007).
147. The Third Pillar applies to "Police and Judicial Cooperation on Criminal Matters" and, thus, not to spies. CRAIG & DE BIRCA. supra note 49, at 39-41.
148. In the European Court of Human Rights, see Von Hannover v. Germany, App. No. 59320/00, 40 Eur. H.R. Rep. 1 (2005); Peck v. United Kingdom, 2003-I Eur. Ct. H.R 123. In the European Court of Justice, see Case C-101/01, Criminal Proceedings Against Lindqvist, 2003 E.C.R. I-12971; Case T-194/04; Bavarian Lager Co. v. Comm'n, 1999 E.C.R. 11-3217.
149. Lindqvist, 2003 E.C.R. at I-13006.
150. Id. at 1-13025.
151. Von Hannover, 40 Eur. H.R. Rep. at 5.
152. Id. at 28.
153. Lindqvist, 2003 E.C.R. at I-12971.
154. Id. at I-13002.
155. E-mail from Xavier Lewis, Member of the European Comm'n Legal Serv., to Francesca Bignami, Professor of Law, Duke University Sen. of Law (Feb. 18, 2008. 10:51 EST) (on file with author) [hereinafter Lewis E-mail].
156. Id.
157. Id.
158. Lindqvist, 2003 E.C.R. at I-13002.
159. Id. at I-13003.
160. See 36 § Personuppgiftslag (SFS 1998:204) (Swed.).
161. See 13 § Personuppgiftslag (SFS 1998:204) (Swed.) (prohibiting the processing of sensitive personal data); 33 § Personuppgiftslag (SFS 1998:204) (Swed.) (prohibiting the transfer of processed personal data to countries that lack adequate protections for personal data); 35 § Personuppgiftslag (SFS 1998:204) (Swed.) (authorizing the government-designated authority to grant exemptions from prohibitions on transfer of personal data to certain states).
162. See Lewis E-mail, supra note 151.
163. Id.
164. Case C-101/01. Criminal Proceedings Against Lindqvist, 2003 E.C.R. I-12971, I-13003.
165. Id. at I-13004.
166. Id. at I-13004-I-13006.
167. See id. at I-13008.
168. See id. at I-13014.
169. Id. at I-130012-13.
170. Id. at I-13014.
171. Id. at I-13013.
172. Id.
173. Id.
174. 1995 Data Protection Directive, supra note 109, at 39.
175. Lindqvist, 2003 E.C.R. at I-130012-13.
176. See id. Ejusdem generis dictates that "when a word or phrase follows a list of specifics, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only items of the same type as those listed." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 556 (8th ed. 2004).
177. See Lindqvist, 2003 E.C.R. at I-13011.
178. See id. at I-13020.
179. See id.
180. Id. at I-13021.
181. See OVEY & WHITE, supra note 46, at 317-20.
182. See Lindqvist, 2003 E.C.R. at I-13021. More particularly, she argued that the definition of "processing of personal data wholly or partly by automatic means" did not fulfill the criteria of predictability and accuracy. See id.
183. See id.
184. See id.
185. See id.
186. See id. at I-13023-24.
187. See id. at I-13024 ("It is true that, in many respects, the Member States have a margin for maneuver in implementing Directive 95/46.").
188. Id. at 1-13023-24.
189. Id. at I-13024.
190. Id. (noting that member states must endeavor "not only to interpret their national law in a manner consistent with Directive 95/46 but also to make sure they do not rely on an interpretation of it which would be in conflict with the fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order or with the other general principles of Community law").
191. See Case C-145/88, Torfaen Borough Council v. B&Q PLC., 1989 E.C.R. 3851.
192. See id. at 3889. The Court notoriously reversed itself on this point in C-267/91, Criminal Proceedings Against Keck & Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097, I-6131. Please note that C-267/91 is a combination of the two original cases: C-267/91 and C-268/91. See id. at Issue 1.
193. See Torfaen Borough Council, 1989 E.C.R. at 3889.
194. See id. As with the right to privacy, before a public policy reason can trump the right to free movement of goods, the proportionality principle must be satisfied: the restriction on the free movement of goods must be necessary for satisfying the public policy end and the burden on free movement of goods must be proportionate to the end being pursued. See id. at 3888.
195. See id.
196. See Council of the City of Stoke-on-Trent & Norwich City Council v. B&Q PLC. 1992 E.C.R. I-6635, I-6656 (discussing different possible interpretations arising out of three British rulings).
197. See id. at I-6656-57.
198. Id. at I-6659.
199. Case C-36/02, Omega Speilhallen-und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v. Oberburgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn, 2004 E.C.R. I-9609.
200. Id. at I-9643 (noting that a laserdome is a facility in which players using "submachine-gun-type laser targeting devices and sensory tags fixed either in the firing corridors or to jackets worn by players" competed against each other for amusement).
201. See id. at I-9643.
202. Id. at I-9644.
203. Id. at I-9645.
204. Id.
205. Id.
206. Id.
207. Id.
208. Id. at I-9655.
209. Id. at I-9653.
210. Id. at I-9654.
211. See id. at I-9653.
212. Id. at I-9654.
213. Id. at I-9652.
214. Id.
215. Id. at I-9652, I-9654.
216. Id. at I-9654.
217. Id.
218. See generally JOHN RAWLS, POLITICAL LIBERALISM (1993).
219. The ECJ has preliminary reference jurisdiction. See CRAIG & DE BURCA, supra note 49, at 432. THE ECTHR does not have preliminary reference jurisdiction among its forms of jurisdiction. SEE OVEY & WHITE, supra note 46, at 8-11.
220. Protocol 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Restructuring the Control Machinery Established Thereby art. 35, May 11, 1994, Eur. T.S. No. 155 [hereinafter Protocol 11].
221. See id. art. 44 (noting that the ECtHR issues final judgments).
222. Case C-36/02, Omega Speilhallen, 2004 E.C.R. I-9609,I-9652. Indeed, on their face, the doctrines of margin of discretion and margin of appreciation are identical. The linguistic difference is an artifact of different English translations from the same French term of art "marge d'appréciation" See generally James Sweeney, 'Margin of Appreciation' in the ECJ and ECHR, 34 LEGAL ISSUES OF ECON. INTEGRATION 27, 28-36 (2007) (comparing the ECJ's case law with the ECtHR's doctrine of margin of appreciation).
223. CAMERON, supra note 52, at 28; see HOWARD CHARLES YOUROW, THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION DOCTRINE IN THE DYNAMICS OF EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE (1996).
224. See CAMERON, supra note 52, at 28-29.
225. See id. at 30.
226. Handyside v. The United Kingdom, 24 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) § 49 (1976).
227. See YOUROW, supra note 219, at 56; Sweeney, supra note 218, at 42.
228. In other areas, however, the movement away from the margin of appreciation is less clear. Indeed, according to some commentators, the ECtHR continues to rely heavily on the doctrine to decide a wide variety of cases. See Benvenisti, supra note 14, at 846; Carozza, supra note 15, at 57.
229. Von Hannover v. Germany, App. No. 59320/00, 40 Eur. H.R. Rep. 1, 23 (2005).
230. Id. at 6-16.
231. Id. at 5-6.
232. Id. at 7-15.
233. Id. at 15-16.
234. Id. at 5.
235. Id. at 5-6.
236. Id. at 5.
237. Id. at 7.
238. Id.
239. Id.
240. Id. at 7-8.
241. Id.
242. Id.
243. Id.
244. Id. at 8.
245. Id.
246. Id.
247. Id.
248. Id.
249. Id.
250. Id. at 15-16.
251. Id. at 6.
252. Id.
253. Id. at 16.
254. See id.
255. See id. at 6.
256. Id. at 16.
257. Id. at 28-29.
258. Id. at 23.
259. Id. at 24
260. Id. at 23.
261. Id. at 24.
262. Id.
263. Id. at 25.
264. Id.
265. Id. at 27.
266. Id. ("[T]he Court considers that the publication of the photos and articles in question . . . cannot be deemed to contribute to any debate of general interest to society . . . .").
267. Id. at 25 ("Although freedom of expression also extends to the publication of photos, this is an area in which the protection of the rights and reputation of others takes on particular importance. The present case does not concern the dissemination of 'ideas,' but of images containing very personal or even intimate 'information' about an individual.").
268. Id.
269. Id. at 25-27.
270. Id. at 25 ("[P]hotos appearing in the tabloid press are often taken in a climate of continual harassment which induces in the person concerned a very strong sense of intrusion into their private life or even of persecution").
271. Id. at 26 ("The Court considers that a fundamental distinction needs to be made between reporting facts-even controversial ones-capable of contributing to a debate in a democratic society relating to politicians in the exercise of their functions, for example, and reporting details of the private life of an individual who, moreover, as in this case, does not exercise official functions.").
272. Id.
273. Id. at 27 ("[T]he Court considers that the publication of the photos and articles in question, the sole purpose of which was to satisfy the curiosity of a particular readership regarding the details of the applicant's private life, cannot be deemed to contribute to any debate of general interest to society despite the applicant being known to the public").
274. Id. at 26.
275. Id. at 27.
276. Id. at 29.
277. Id. at 28.
278. Case C-101/01, Criminal Proceedings Against Lindqvist, 2003 E.C.R. I-12971, I-13024; see also Von Hannover, 40 Eur. H.R. Rep. at 20 (citing Article 8 of the Convention as the relevant standard).
279. Lindqvist, 2003 E.C.R. at I-13025.
280. See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Dec. 19, 1995, 131 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen [BGHZ] 332 (F.R.G), translated in BASIL S. MARKESINIS & HANNES UNBERATH, THE GERMAN LAW OF TORTS: A COMPARATIVE TREATISE 444, 449 (4th ed. 2002); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] Dec. 15, 1999, 101 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] 361 (F.R.G), translated in MARKESINIS & UNBERATH, supra, at 450, 462.
281. See 101 BVerfGE 361, translated in MARKESINIS & UNBERATH, supra note 276, at 459-61.
282. See 131 BGHZ 332, translated in MARKESINIS & UNBERATH, supra note 276, at 445.
283. See 131 BGHZ 332, translated in MARKESINIS & UNBERATH, supra note 276. at 449.
284. See Sir Brian Neill, Privacy: A Challenge for the Next Century, in PROTECTING PRIVACY 1-4 (Basil S. Markesinis ed., 1999); see also Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers, Ltd., [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] A.C. 457 (appeal taken from Eng.) (U.K.).
285. See Case C-101/01, Criminal Proceedings Against Lindqvist, 2003 E.C.R. I-12971, I-13029-30.
286. See id.
287. See id. ("It is for the national authorities and courts responsible for applying the national legislation implementing Directive 95/46 to ensure a fair balance between the rights and interests in question, including the fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order.").
288. See Benvenisti, supra note 14, at 847; Letsas, supra note 14, at 731-32.
289. On the U.S. system, see HARRY T. EDWARDS & LINDA A. ELLIOTT, FEDERAL COURTS STANDARDS OF REVIEW 6 (2007). On a typical European legal system, see Michele Taruffo, Civil Procedure and the Path of a Civil Case, in INTRODUCTION TO ITALIAN LAW 159, 176 (Jeffrey S. Lena & Ugo Mattei eds., 2002)
290. This discussion does not address appellate review of questions of fact. On questions of fact, higher courts generally defer to lower courts because lower courts are better equipped to establish the facts in a particular case. See EDWARDS & ELLIOT, supra note 285, at 6-7. Moreover, a question of fact is, by definition, limited to the particular case before the court and therefore a lower court's determination will not reverberate throughout the legal system. See id.
291. See 131 BGHZ 332, translated in MARKESINIS & UNBERATH, supra note 276, at 444-49; 101 BVerfGE 361, translated in MARKESINIS & UNBERATH, supra note 276, at 450-62.
292. See RICHARD J. PIERCE, JR., 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE 142-44 (4th ed. 2002). On review of laws, see ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, C ONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES 629-36 (1997) (rational basis review).
293. For the conventional U.S. position, see CHEMERINSKY, supra note 288, at 1, 47. On the European position, see JOHN HENRY MERRYMAN, THE CIVIL LAW TRADITION 14-17, 35-37 (2d ed. 1985).
294. See CHEMERINSKY, supra note 288, at 46-48.
295. See, e.g., Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (federal constitution) art. 93(1.1) (F.R.G).
296. See Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, art. I-29, Dec. 16, 2004, 2004 O.J. (C 310) 1, 24-25, available at http://eur-lex. europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:310:SOM:EN:HTML; Protocol 11, supra note 216, art. 32.
297. The debate on relativism versus universalism in the human rights arena and the implications for the ECtHR's margin of appreciation is extensive. For the universalist position and a critical view of the margin of appreciation, see Benvenisti, supra note 14, at 847; Letsas, supra note 14, at 731-32.
298. Joseph H.H. Weiler, Human Rights, Constitutionalism and Integration: Iconography and Fetishism, in DEVELOPING A CONSTITUTION FOR EUROPE 59, 66 (Erik Oddvar Eriksen et al. eds., 2004).
299. See, e.g., Carozza, supra note 15, at 46-50, 56-63 (arguing in favor of the margin of appreciation based on the human rights principle of subsidiarity); Paul Mahoney, Marvellous Richness of Diversity or Invidious Cultural Relativism?, 10 HUMAN RTS LJ. 1, 2-3 (arguing in favor of the margin of appreciation based on subsidiarity, democracy, and cultural diversity).
300. See, e.g., Heifer & Slaughter, supra note 16, at 282-91.