SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION violated her right to privacy and family life as enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court was presented with a conflict between the freedom of the press and the right to protect private life, particularly of public figures. The Court rejected the German Courts’ decisions, which had found that the applicant was undeniably a contemporary public figure par excellence and thus, had to tolerate the publication of such photographs even when they were not related to her official duties. The Court held that the press reporting details about the applicant’s personal life, notably as she did not exercise an official State function, did not fall under the watchdog role of the press and did not contribute to a debate of general interest. More info here. In the case of Von Hannover v. Germany (No. 2) (2012), the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR found that two photographs depicting a royal family on holiday and published in two German newspapers violated the right to privacy pursuant to Article 8 of the ECHR because they did not reflect any matter of public interest detailed in the accompanying text. However, a third photograph depicted a Prince in poor health, and since the health of the Prince was a matter of public concern, the ECtHR found no violation of Article 8. In reaching its ruling, the ECtHR set out the criteria which domestic courts should follow when balancing the right to privacy pursuant to Article 8 against the right to freedom of expression under Article 10. Firstly, whether the information contributes to a debate of general interest; second, how well known is the person concerned and the subject matter of the report; thirdly, the prior conduct of the person concerned; fourthly, content, form and consequences of the publication; and fifth, the circumstances in which the photos were taken. More info here. In the case of Axel Springer AG v. Germany (2012), the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR ruled by 12 votes to five that Germany had violated the applicant’s right to freedom of expression when it fined a magazine and prohibited further publication of articles concerning the arrest of an actor for cocaine possession. The actor had brought an action alleging that the magazine had breached his right to privacy. The Court reasoned that the articles concerned public judicial facts obtained from official sources about someone well-known to the public regarding an arrest in a public place, albeit for a minor and common crime and that, although the sanctions were lenient, they were unnecessary in a democratic society and disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The Court also set forth six criteria to take into consideration when balancing freedom of expression and the right to privacy: (1) the contribution to a debate of general interest, (2) the subject of the report and that it concerned a public figure, (3) the prior conduct of the person concerned, (4) the method of obtaining the information and its veracity, (5) the content, form, and consequences of the media content, and (6) the severity of the sanction imposed. The dissenting Judges agreed with the majority’s assessment of the facts, but they felt that the majority had simply reached a different conclusion giving more weight to freedom of expression than privacy in comparison to the domestic courts, and hence gone beyond the Court’s remit as it was not supposed “to repeat anew assessments duly performed by the domestic courts”. More info here. In the case of Lillo-Stenberg v. Norway (2014), the First Section of the ECtHR found Article 10 of the ECHR protected the right of a Norwegian magazine to publish an article containing 26