The Caroline Judgment

[tbhrc]

Because of the recent discussions in the Charlotte Casiraghi Current Events Thread about paparazzi pics and so on, I thought I could open a thread about the famous 'Caroline-Judgement'.

Here are two links:

CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF VON HANNOVER v. GERMANY

FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Some quotes:

Summary of the facts

Since the beginning of the 1990s Princess Caroline von Hannover has been campaigning – often through the courts – in various European countries to prevent photographs about her private life being published in the sensationalist press.

She has on several occasions unsuccessfully applied to the German courts for an injunction preventing any further publication of a series of photographs which had appeared in the 1990s in the German magazines Bunte, Freizeit Revue and Neue Post. She claimed that they infringed her right to protection of her private life and her right to control the use of her image.

In a landmark judgment of 15 December 1999 the Federal Constitutional Court granted the applicant’s injunction regarding the photographs in which she appeared with her children on the ground that their need for protection of their intimacy was greater than that of adults.

However, the Constitutional Court considered that the applicant, who was undeniably a contemporary “public figure”, had to tolerate the publication of photographs of herself in a public place, even if they showed her in scenes from her daily life rather than engaged in her official duties. The Constitutional Court referred in that connection to the freedom of the press and to the public’s legitimate interest in knowing how such a person generally behaved in public.

So what do you think? Any changes since 2004? Less paparazzi pics? More privacy for the family?

[Beatrice]

Well in my opinion nothing has changed since then.Especially now as the three of her four children are adults the situation is much worse.The only change is that now they earn money when they gain the court case.I hope you all understand what i'm saying as English isn't my native tongue.

[Daytona]

A mon avis,every ruling from the european court of human rights is important(and from every court ofcourse) because some base standards are set and the laws are applied to all,state and individuals who violate the rights of humans.I dont think many things changed since that decision but i am confident that Caroline is satisfied with the courts ruling simply because she knows that firstly the judicial system is actually working and secondly that even though she is a public figure and her life should be crystal clear, she has a fraction of space that is protected by law.Private life and privacy are acknowledged to public figures.Besides i dont believe she shows anger at photographers who follow her everywhere,she has accepted the fact that she is of public interest.But if ,for some private matters,her privacy will be violated next court ruling will favor her again and that is reassuring for her.

[anag]

Originally Posted by Beatrice

Well in my opinion nothing has changed since then.Especially now as the three of her four children are adults the situation is much worse.The only change is that now they earn money when they gain the court case.I hope you all understand what i'm saying as English isn't my native tongue.

I totally agree with you, nothing has changed. Although, I think that apart from money she gained the satisfaction of knowing that she fought and won. And you're right, the fact that 3 out of her 4 children are adults makes a big difference. At least little Alexandra isn't photographed too much.

And your English is better than most Americans.

Ani

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by anag

I totally agree with you, nothing has changed. Although, I think that apart from money she gained the satisfaction of knowing that she fought and won. And you're right, the fact that 3 out of her 4 children are adults makes a big difference. At least little Alexandra isn't photographed too much.

And your English is better than most Americans.

Ani

It does seem to be better for Alexandra. Even the Italian magazines feel it necessary to protect themselves by blurring Alex's face in the pictures. But I agree with Beatrice that, for the Casiraghis, it's worse since they are adults.
That said, however, in agreeance with ?Daytona (forgot whose post, sorry) it is a major victory for Caroline. The ECHR ruling is a landmark and will influence all future cases on the same topic.

Originally Posted by tbhrc

IMO something has changed, well I can only speak from my experiences in Germany. We usually don't get paparazzi pics in our magazine's. If you take a look at Towsends blog you'll notice that there have been tons of private pics when the Casiraghi's were younger, but nowadays we usually just get a few pics of them in private (beside the summer holiday pics).

It seems that the Italian and Spanish press sees things a bit different. Their mags include on a regular basis paparazzi pics of the family.

The German magazines can't publish any paparazzi pics of Caroline's family without risk. She sued them once and even though they won, in their courts, the ECHR overruling places them in a bad situation if they ignore it. And since Caroline filed a complaint once already, she can easily do it again. So I guess the German magazines just don't take the risk. The Italian and Spanish mags will keep pushing it as long as they can. I've wondered why Caroline doesn't file complaints in those countries, but maybe she pullls less weight there than Germany? After all, she is married to a German prince and they own property in Germany; does that make some difference?

[tbhrc]

IMO something has changed, well I can only speak from my experiences in Germany. We usually don't get paparazzi pics in our magazine's. If you take a look at Towsends blog you'll notice that there have been tons of private pics when the Casiraghi's were younger, but nowadays we usually just get a few pics of them in private (beside the summer holiday pics).

It seems that the Italian and Spanish press sees things a bit different. Their mags include on a regular basis paparazzi pics of the family.

[tbhrc]

Here are some interesting articles about that subject:

Princess wins tabloid privacy war

Princess Caroline of Monaco has won a major legal battle over the right of newspapers to publish pictures of her. The European Court of Human rights said photographs of her and her children should not have been published, even if they were taken in a public place.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3838945.stm


Princess Caroline of Monaco wins privacy ruling

Princess Caroline of Monaco won a landmark ruling from the European Court of Human Rights on Thursday, which confirmed that the publishing of paparazzi photographs taken of the Princess in a public place was a violation of her right to privacy.

The ruling is expected to encourage courts throughout Europe to take a stronger line over the publishing of images of celebrities who do not have official functions or who do not seek public attention.

http://www.out-law.com/page-4663



Private life: no common law for presidents, princesses and the public

A recent ECtHR case lends greater support for successful claims against the press for breach of privacy which, says Joanna Brett, could be useful not just for the rich and famous but also for the ordinary person on the street.

http://lawzone.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=111335


Strasbourg Privacy Revolution?


Media intrusion on the private lives of individuals has been an important theme in recent English cases. The courts have tried to strike a careful balance between the Article 8 right to private life and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression. The boundaries of the claim in breach of confidence have been modestly extended with a view to protect the privacy and the claim has been reformulated. All this may be about to be the subject of radical revision as a result of the most important Strasbourg media case of recent times. In this article we will explain this decision and seek to explore some of its potentially far reaching consequences.

http://www.carter-ruck.com/articles/...evolution.html

[dw2108]

I have a big, big problem with this suit which making the rich even richer by theatening to file suit against anyone they so choose to control. Grace Kelly knew how to handle photographers and the like, but she has three kids who appear to have learned nothing from her. In my opinion, Caroline, Stephanie and Albert want the spotlight on when all is OK, and otherwise off. An old saying: If you can't stand the heat, get the BLEEP out of the kitchen!

Dave

[rodbarreiro]

i dont tink that they want the spotlight, if Caroline went to St. Remy exactly for that reason, i just thinkthat she is brilliant and has been always sorrounded with glamour and has 3 beautiful children, she tries to deal with it because she has to

[dw2108]

It is really sad that these people have to take such drastic BUT CRUEL measures to get some privacy, but their privacy comes legally at the expense of OUR human rights. This ruling allows The World Court to accept LIES as testimony, e.g., when one witness was asked if he had slept with Princess Caroline, his response -- taken as TESIMONY -- was, "Well, if I had, I would lie about that, but my answer is 'No.'" What kind of "court" are we talking about here? One that violates human rights? Princess Caroline set a really good precedent here -- TRIAL BY LIES! And Princess Stephanie holds the ROYAL WORLD RECORD FOR FILING SUITS, as well as making the most money off these suits. Has this family gone insane, non-linear, or what?

Dave

[fandesacs2003]

Originally Posted by dw2108

It is really sad that these people have to take such drastic BUT CRUEL measures to get some privacy, but their privacy comes legally at the expense of OUR human rights. This ruling allows The World Court to accept LIES as testimony, e.g., when one witness was asked if he had slept with Princess Caroline, his response -- taken as TESIMONY -- was, "Well, if I had, I would lie about that, but my answer is 'No.'" What kind of "court" are we talking about here? One that violates human rights? Princess Caroline set a really good precedent here -- TRIAL BY LIES! And Princess Stephanie holds the ROYAL WORLD RECORD FOR FILING SUITS, as well as making the most money off these suits. Has this family gone insane, non-linear, or what?

Dave

I'm sorry, but IMO, the insane think is that somebody has to be asked if hje slept with Prcs Caroline, This is scandalous. Out of a criminal case, which of course is not the case, why her personnal intimate life has to be brought in front of people??? I would not appreciate if it would happen to be. And I do not consider that it's my neighbor's human right, to know whith whom I slept yesterday night

[dw2108]

Originally Posted by fandesacs2003

I'm sorry, but IMO, the insane think is that somebody has to be asked if hje slept with Prcs Caroline, This is scandalous. Out of a criminal case, which of course is not the case, why her personnal intimate life has to be brought in front of people??? I would not appreciate if it would happen to be. And I do not consider that it's my neighbor's human right, to know whith whom I slept yesterday night

Well, if THAT sounds insane, then why did CAROLINE'S attorney, Prinz, ask the witness THAT question? Monaco must be a crazy place -- "crazy" meant in the good sense! But I agree; it's an insane question to ask!

Dave
THE PERSON WHO OVER-REACTS IN ALL MATTERS -- LARGE, SMALL, IRRELEVENNNNT or otherwise.

[Beatrice]

^I agree.Yes moving to St.Remy was wise.

[Horseygal]

Originally Posted by Beatrice

^I agree.Yes moving to St.Remy was wise.

I agree, too - getting out of Monaco to a quiet place like St. Remy allowed them to grow up out of the spotlight - but, now that they are adults, are dating, enjoy socializing, they become fodder for the tabloids.

[julianneneville]

Is this judgment the reason why we have seen so few pictures lately? Especially of the family's recent vacation on the PACHA?

[dw2108]

Originally Posted by julianneneville

Is this judgment the reason why we have seen so few pictures lately? Especially of the family's recent vacation on the PACHA?

I was wondering about that too. I think, you're right.

Dave

[seto]

I have a question if these laws were passed in every country with royalty and they could only take pictures of them at official functions would people still be interested in these families?

I think the pictures of them doing their duty are nice but it is nice to see them behaving like normal people.

[Coquine]

Originally Posted by seto

I have a question if these laws were passed in every country with royalty and they could only take pictures of them at official functions would people still be interested in these families?

In Belgium, the Belgian royal family is still popular although we hardly see any paparazzi pictures of them.

In this weeks issue, Point de Vue announces that they are convicted (I don’t know if this is the right expression, in French it would be ‘condamné’) for publishing pictures of Andrea & Charlotte. Here’s what they say :

Point de Vue condamné
« Par jugement du 3 mai 2006, le tribunal de grande instance de Paris, Chambre de la presse, a condamné la société Point de Vue à payer des dommages et intérêts à Andrea Casiraghi et à Charlotte Casiraghi, pour avoir porté atteinte à leur vie privée et à leur droit à l’image dans le numéro 2975 du magazine Point de Vue, paru dans la semaine du 27 juillet au 2 août 2005. »

Now I understand why Point de Vue hasn’t published any private pictures of the Casiraghis from this summer yet. I think it’s a pity. Point de Vue is always very respectful, never makes any negative comment. Caroline should better concentrate on the really trashy magazines who always make negative comments about them and publish really intrusive pictures. The pictures in Point de Vue just showed Charlotte and Andrea walking on the street. I've seen worse pictures of them. It's really a pity.

Here you can see the pictures in question :
Charlotte : http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=170409&d=1121658794 (picture from Newscom, posted by Tbhrc)
Andrea : http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/250284-post14.html

[dw2108]

Originally Posted by seto

I have a question if these laws were passed in every country with royalty and they could only take pictures of them at official functions would people still be interested in these families?

Not in the US! We killed off all our royalty by 1776, and few in the US know who Princess Caroline is. Moreover, in the US, her numerous suits filed against so many people, would make her a complete disgrace, as the late Frank Sinatra found to be the case when he filed suit aganst a photographer. THAT killed his image, which he had to regain over a period of some ten years, but he was still seen there-after as nothing more an acting, saloon singing jerk by comedians, commentators and fans. So he really lost a great deal of his image, and his suit haunted him even after his death!

I think the pictures of them doing their duty are nice but it is nice to see them behaving like normal people.

And they are just mere people; they should remember that AT ALL TIMES!

Dave

[anag]

I agree with you coquine, PDV is not as harsh a magazine as others are. There have been more intrusive photos than them just walking in the streets though, but not too many. I agree..it is a real pity.

Ani