Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesa
2011. gada 18. janvāris
Facts
The applicant, a publisher of a newspaper, published information about drug addiction of a famous model. There was a photo added to the article showing the model coming out of the premises of Narcotics Anonymous (NA) center. The model sued the applicant for a breach of her privacy. The national courts found the applicant guilty and ordered the company to pay damages to the model and the success fee (payable by a client to his or her lawyer only if the case has been won) amounting to almost 250 000 pounds to her lawyer, stating that the publication of details of the model’s treatment in the NA and the secretly taken photographs was an invasion in her private life.
Complaint
The applicant alleged that the punishment for the publication of the photographs violated its right to freedom of expression.
Court's ruling
The Court ruled that the model’s right to private life outweighed the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. Thus, there had not been a violation of the applicant’s freedom of expression.
The Court found that the national courts had given good enough reasons why the pictures should not have been published, considering the pre-eminent role of the press in society. The Court then balanced the freedom of expression of the applicant against the right to private life of the model and found that:
- The model had previously publicly denied drug use, and thus the core facts of the drug addiction and treatment were a matter of public interest and capable of being published.
- However, it shall be distinguished between, on the one hand, private information which the model had already made public by herself, and which was therefore the subject of a public debate and, on the other, the additional information which she had not made public.
- In the present case, the photographs had been taken covertly and were of an intimate and private nature.
- The public interest had been already satisfied by the publication of the core facts of the model’s addiction and treatment in article.
The Court ruled that the applicant’s freedom of expression had not been violated in respect of the obligation to pay damages but had been violated regarding the obligation to pay the high amount of success fee.
As regards the damages, the Court found that the damages were prescribed by British law and the legitimate aim of them was to protect the privacy of the model. The national courts had given good enough reasons why the pictures should not have been published, as they were of an intimate and private nature and covertly taken.
With respect to the success fee, the Court stated that it was prescribed by British laws and pursued the aim of protecting persons who cannot pay for legal aid themselves and thus access justice. However, the famous model was wealthy and was not a person who could not pay for the legal aid. Considering that the domestic proceedings were lengthy and somewhat complex, the sum paid by the applicant to her lawyer was very high and was disproportionate regarding the legitimate interests sought to be protected.