Final and binding: Princess Caroline's holiday photographs permitted

Princess Caroline of Monaco has now definitively failed to prohibit the use of certain private holiday photographs. She last brought proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights against the Federal Republic of Germany, claiming that she had not been granted adequate legal protection in her view.

The photograph in dispute until the very end, which showed Caroline next to her husband Ernst August of Hanover walking on a street, had been published by the tabloid press as part of an article about a trend among Hollywood stars and members of aristocratic families to rent out their holiday homes. Under the headline "Sleep in Princess Caroline's bed – not an impossible dream! – Caroline and Ernst August rent out their dream villa", it had been reported that Caroline's husband owned a holiday villa in Kenya, which was rented out to interested parties during periods of the couple's absence. In a highlighted subtitle, it stated: "Even the rich and famous are thrifty. Many rent out their villas to paying guests".

Court's decision

After the competent German civil courts, including the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), as well as the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG, Beschluss vom 26.02.2008, 1 BvR 1626/07)BVerfG, Beschluss vom 26.02.2008, 1 BvR 1626/07) had rejected a violation of personality rights, the applicant lodged a complaint against the Federal Republic of Germany with the European Court of Human Rights (EGMR). Subsequently, a Chamber of the EGMR had already decided on 13. September 201313. September 2013 that the German courts had sufficiently taken into account the relevant criteria in balancing the differing interests as well as the jurisprudence of the EGMR and that therefore, in particular also taking into account the margin of appreciation available to the domestic courts, there was no violation of the right to respect for private life.

In order to establish a violation of rights, a balancing exercise would have to be conducted between the applicant's right to respect for private life as guaranteed by the ECHR and the publishing house's right to freedom of expression.

If the domestic courts had conducted the balancing in accordance with the criteria developed by the EGMR, weighty reasons would be required in order to replace the view of the domestic courts with that of the EGMR. Relevant criteria for the balancing included, amongst others, the contribution to a debate of general interest, the degree of fame of the person concerned and the subject matter of the reporting, the previous conduct of the person concerned, the content, form and effects of the publication, and with regard to the photographs the circumstances under which they had been taken. These criteria had been sufficiently taken into account by the courts, and the balancing could therefore not be faulted by the EGMR either.

By its decision of 19.02.2014, the EGMR decided not to refer the complaint to the Grand Chamber, whereby the judgment of 13. September 2013 becomes final and binding.

Conclusion

Through numerous proceedings, Princess Caroline has significantly shaped the jurisprudence of the German courts concerning protection of one's image and general right to personality – and by invoking the ECHR had already previously forced a change in German jurisprudence. In the context of the present proceedings and the two parallel proceedings, the EGMR has now confirmed that the implementation of the principles it had established by the German courts has also been carried out properly from its perspective, and at the same time has finally concluded the years-long proceedings concerning the admissibility of the publication of private holiday photographs of Princess Caroline of Monaco.