EHRM, 10-05-2011, nr. 48009/08

The Guardian News & Media Ltd (‘the Guardian’) argued that if the applicant's complaint were to be upheld by the Court, it would seriously and disproportionately fetter the right of the press to publish, and the public to receive, information and opinions in the public interest. A pre-notification requirement would thus have a serious and unjustified chilling effect upon the practical enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression. It would, in their view, also be inconsistent with the concept of responsible journalistic freedom which the Court had consistently emphasised.

The Guardian stressed that while the applicant had formulated the pre-notification duty by reference to the facts of his case, its repercussions would be felt far more widely. First, they argued, an alleged breach could involve not only the media but also public authorities, non-governmental organisations or even private individuals. Second, logic dictated that pre-notification would be required not only in privacy cases but in all cases requiring a balancing exercise pursuant to Article 10 § 2.

Referring to the wide margin of appreciation in this area, the Guardian considered that the appropriate balance had been struck in the United Kingdom. They highlighted the absence of any European consensus that a pre-notification duty was required. Further, although some countries required that consent be obtained before information regarding private life was disseminated, at least where the public interest was not implicated, a similar number of countries had no such provision. The Guardian also referred to the Data Protection Act 1998 and its parent EC Directive, which did not provide for any pre-notification requirement (see paragraphs 42–45 and 64 above). They further referred to the recent inquiry by a House of Commons Select Committee, which in its subsequent report rejected the argument that there was a need for a pre-notification requirement in the United Kingdom (see paragraphs 51–54 above).

Finally, the Guardian contended that any pre-notification requirement would be unworkable in practice. They considered that it would not always be obvious when the pre-notification rule would be triggered, nor was it clear how the need for a ‘public interest’ exception could be catered for.

The Media Lawyers' Association (‘the MLA’) contended that a pre-notification requirement was wrong in principle, would be unworkable in practice and would constitute a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

The MLA emphasised the wide margin of appreciation in deciding what measures were required to satisfy any positive obligation in this field. They referred to the lack of any European consensus on the need for a pre-notification duty. They also pointed to the fact that a House of Commons Select Committee had recently rejected the suggestion that there should be a legal pre-notification requirement (see paragraph 54 above). The question whether there was a need to contact a subject prior to publication was, in their view, a matter to be addressed in the context of the ethics of journalism and the codes of practice governing the media. These codes had evolved over time and demonstrated that the media were well aware of the duty to respect each individual's right to privacy. In particular, the MLA noted that the Editors' Code gave guidance as to what might be covered by ‘public interest’ (see paragraphs 34–35 above).

The MLA contended that the duty for which the applicant argued was vague and uncertain in scope. They pointed out that a pre-publication duty would have wide ramifications, potentially applying not just to the media and journalists but to a far broader group. A number of practical questions arose, for example, as to who would have to be contacted by the media in respect of any intended publication, whether the duty would arise in respect of photographs taken in the street of unknown persons, whether it would apply to images or text previously published and whether it would extend to notification of close family members of the subject, who might also be affected by the publication of the material. The MLA further referred to the need for exceptions to any general duty, for example, where there was a good reason not to contact the subject or where there was a public interest in publication.

The MLA emphasised the importance of Article 10 and in particular the role of the press as ‘public watchdog’. They considered that the availability and operation of interim injunctions continued to be a matter of concern in this area and contended that prior restraints on publication constituted a serious interference with the right to freedom of expression. Accordingly, such restraints should only be granted where strictly necessary, and any order granted should be no wider than necessary. They emphasised that injunction proceedings in themselves inevitably led to delay and costs, even if no injunction was eventually granted, and any changes which would encourage the seeking of injunctions would therefore not be desirable. They argued that domestic law struck an appropriate balance between competing rights and interests.

In their joint written submissions, the interveners referred to the importance of the right to freedom of expression. There would, in their view, be significant consequences were a pre-notification requirement to be introduced. It would delay publication of important news, which was itself a perishable commodity, in a wide range of public interest situations wherever the public figure could claim that his psychological integrity was at stake from publication of the truth. The interveners disputed that any balance was required between rights arising under Articles 8 and 10, arguing that there was a presumption in favour of Article 10 and that reputation was a subsidiary right which had to be narrowly interpreted.

The interveners further argued that there was a wide margin of appreciation in this area. They emphasised the tradition in common law countries against prior restraints on publication, arguing that a pre-notification requirement would go against the long-standing approach in this area. Further, they pointed out, there was no Europe-wide consensus as to a need for a pre-notification rule. It was also noteworthy that questions of privacy protection had been regularly debated in the United Kingdom in recent years and had been the subject of various reports, including the recent Select Committee report (see paragraph 51–54 above). In that report, the applicant's case for a pre-notification requirement had been rejected.

The interveners also contended that privacy was inadequately defined to support a pre-notification requirement. However, they accepted that there might be an argument for a notice requirement relating to medical records and photographs taken without consent in private places, for example, but only if reputation were no part of Article 8 and private information were properly defined. In their view, as currently formulated, the requirement called for was so vague as to be unworkable.

The interveners considered that any general duty would have to be subject to exceptions, notably to an exception where there was a ‘public interest’ in publication. This being the case, it was relevant that in the applicant's case, the editor of the News of the World would have published the story without notification even if there had been a legally binding pre-notification requirement because he genuinely believed that there was a Nazi element to the activities which would have justified publication in the public interest (see paragraph 24 above).

The interveners emphasised that even successfully defended injunction proceedings could cost a newspaper GBP 10,000; an unsuccessful newspaper could pay GBP 60,000. It was simply not viable for the media to contest every case where compulsory notification would be followed by a request for an injunction. This was the chilling effect of a pre-notification requirement.

It is clear that the words ‘the right to respect for … private … life’ which appear in Article 8 require not only that the State refrain from interfering with private life but also entail certain positive obligations on the State to ensure effective enjoyment of this right by those within its jurisdiction (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 31, Series A no. 31). Such an obligation may require the adoption of positive measures designed to secure effective respect for private life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 57, ECHR 2004-VI; and Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, § 61–62, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV).

The Court emphasises the importance of a prudent approach to the State's positive obligations to protect private life in general and of the need to recognise the diversity of possible methods to secure its respect (Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 19, 28 April 2009). The choice of measures designed to secure compliance with that obligation in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves in principle falls within the Contracting States' margin of appreciation (see, inter alia, X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 24, Series A no. 91; and Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 46, ECHR 2003-III). However, this discretion goes hand in hand with European supervision (see, mutatis mutandis, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59(c), Series A no. 216; and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-XI).

The Court recalls that a number of factors must be taken into account when determining the breadth of the margin of appreciation to be accorded to the State in a case in which Article 8 of the Convention is engaged. First, the Court reiterates that the notion of ‘respect’ in Article 8 is not clear-cut, especially as far as the positive obligations inherent in that concept are concerned: bearing in mind the diversity of the practices followed and the situations obtaining in the Contracting States, the notion's requirements will vary considerably from case to case (see Sheffield and Horsham v. the United Kingdom, 30 July 1998, § 52, Reports 1998-V). Thus Contracting Parties enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 22, § 48; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 97, ECHR 2003-VIII; and Armonienė, cited above, § 38). In this regard, the Court recalls that by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, the State authorities are, in principle, in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on how best to secure the right to respect for private life within the domestic legal order (see, mutatis mutandis, Handyside, cited above, § 48; A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 232, 16 December 2010; and MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, § 142, 18 January 2011).

Second, the nature of the activities involved affects the scope of the margin of appreciation. The Court has previously noted that a serious interference with private life can arise where the state of domestic law conflicts with an important aspect of personal identity (see Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 77, ECHR 2002-VI). Thus, in cases concerning Article 8, where a particularly important facet of an individual's existence or identity is at stake, the margin allowed to the State is correspondingly narrowed (see Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 77, ECHR 2007-IV; and A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], cited above, § 232). The same is true where the activities at stake involve a most intimate aspect of private life (see, mutatis mutandis, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 52, Series A no. 45; and A.D.T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35765/97, § 37, ECHR 2000-IX).

Third, the existence or absence of a consensus across the Member States of the Council of Europe, either as to the relative importance of the interest at stake or as to the best means of protecting it, is also relevant to the extent of the margin of appreciation: where no consensus exists, the margin of appreciation afforded to States is generally a wide one (see Evans, cited above, § 77; X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom, 22 April 1997, § 44, Reports 1997-II; and Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 78, ECHR 2007-XIII). Similarly, any standards set out in applicable international instruments and reports are relevant to the interpretation of the guarantees of the Convention and in particular to the identification of any common European standard in the field (see Tănase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 176, ECHR 2010-…).

Finally, in cases where measures which an applicant claims are required pursuant to positive obligations under Article 8 would have an impact on freedom of expression, regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing rights and interests arising under Article 8 and Article 10 (see MGN Limited, cited above, § 142), rights which merit, in principle, equal respect (Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS) v. France, no. 12268/03, § 41, 23 July 2009; compare and contrast Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 65, Series A no. 30).

The Court emphasises the pre-eminent role of the press in informing the public and imparting information and ideas on matters of public interest in a State governed by the rule of law (see Financial Times Ltd and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 821/03, § 59, 15 December 2009; MGN Limited, cited above, § 141; and De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports 1997-I). Not only does the press have the task of imparting such information and ideas but the public also has a right to receive them. Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of ‘public watchdog’ (Observer and Guardian, cited above, § 59; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-III; Gutiérrez Suárez v. Spain, no. 16023/07, § 25, 1 June 2010; and MGN Limited, cited above, § 141).

It is to be recalled that methods of objective and balanced reporting may vary considerably and that it is therefore not for this Court to substitute its own views for those of the press as to what technique of reporting should be adopted (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298). However, editorial discretion is not unbounded. The press must not overstep the bounds set for, among other things, ‘the protection of … the rights of others’, including the requirements of acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and of providing ‘reliable and precise’ information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 78, ECHR 2004-X; Times Newspapers Ltd v. United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), no. 3002/03 and 23676/03, § 42, ECHR 2009-…; and MGN Limited, cited above, § 141).

The Court also reiterates that there is a distinction to be drawn between reporting facts — even if controversial — capable of contributing to a debate of general public interest in a democratic society, and making tawdry allegations about an individual's private life (see Armonienė, cited above, § 39). In respect of the former, the pre-eminent role of the press in a democracy and its duty to act as a ‘public watchdog’ are important considerations in favour of a narrow construction of any limitations on freedom of expression. However, different considerations apply to press reports concentrating on sensational and, at times, lurid news, intended to titillate and entertain, which are aimed at satisfying the curiosity of a particular readership regarding aspects of a person's strictly private life (Von Hannover, cited above, § 65; Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS), cited above, § 40; and MGN Limited, cited above, § 143). Such reporting does not attract the robust protection of Article 10 afforded to the press. As a consequence, in such cases, freedom of expression requires a more narrow interpretation (see Société Prisma Presse v. France (dec.), nos. 66910/01 and 71612/01, 1 July 2003; Von Hannover, cited above, § 66; Leempoel & S.A. ED. Ciné Revue v. Belgium, no. 64772/01, § 77, 9 November 2006; Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS), cited above, 40; and MGN Limited, cited above, § 143). While confirming the Article 10 right of members of the public to have access to a wide range of publications covering a variety of fields, the Court stresses that in assessing in the context of a particular publication whether there is a public interest which justifies an interference with the right to respect for private life, the focus must be on whether the publication is in the interest of the public and not whether the public might be interested in reading it.

It is commonly acknowledged that the audiovisual media have often a much more immediate and powerful effect than the print media (see Jersild, cited above, § 31; and Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, § 62, ECHR 2003-I). Accordingly, although freedom of expression also extends to the publication of photographs, the Court recalls that this is an area in which the protection of the rights of others takes on particular importance, especially where the images contain very personal and intimate ‘information’ about an individual or where they are taken on private premises and clandestinely through the use of secret recording devices (see Von Hannover, cited above, § 59; Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS), cited above, § 47; and MGN Limited, cited above, § 143). Factors relevant to the assessment of where the balance between the competing interests lies include the additional contribution made by the publication of the photos to a debate of general interest as well as the content of the photographs (see Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria, no. 34315/96, § 37, 26 February 2002).

The Court recalls that the nature and severity of any sanction imposed on the press in respect of a publication are relevant to any assessment of the proportionality of an interference with the right to freedom of expression (see, for example, Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV; Lešník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 63, ECHR 2003-IVl and Karsai v. Hungary, no. 5380/07, § 36, 1 December 2009). Thus the Court must exercise the utmost caution where measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authorities are such as to dissuade the press from taking part in the discussion of matters of legitimate public concern (see Jersild, cited above, § 35; and Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 111, ECHR 2004-XI).

Finally, the Court has emphasised that while Article 10 does not prohibit the imposition of prior restraints on publication, the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court. This is especially so as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest (see Observer and Guardian, cited above, § 60). The Court would, however, observe that prior restraints may be more readily justified in cases which demonstrate no pressing need for immediate publication and in which there is no obvious contribution to a debate of general public interest.

The Court recalls, first, that the applicant's claim relates to the positive obligation under Article 8 and that the State in principle enjoys a wide margin of appreciation (see paragraph 108 above). It is therefore relevant that the respondent State has chosen to put in place a system for balancing the competing rights and interests which excludes a pre-notification requirement. It is also relevant that a parliamentary committee recently held an inquiry on privacy issues during which written and oral evidence was taken from a number of stakeholders, including the applicant and newspaper editors. In its subsequent report, the Select Committee rejected the argument that a pre-notification requirement was necessary in order to ensure effective protection of respect for private life (see paragraph 54 above).

Second, the Court notes that the applicant's case concerned the publication of intimate details of his sexual activities, which would normally result in a narrowing of the margin of appreciation (see paragraph 109 above). However, the highly personal nature of the information disclosed in the applicant's case can have no significant bearing on the margin of appreciation afforded to the State in this area given that, as noted above (see paragraph 121 above), any pre-notification requirement would have an impact beyond the circumstances of the applicant's own case.

Third, the Court highlights the diversity of practice among member States as to how to balance the competing interests of respect for private life and freedom of expression (see paragraphs 62–63 above). Indeed the applicant has not cited a single jurisdiction in which a pre-notification requirement as such is imposed. In so far as any common consensus can be identified, it therefore appears that such consensus is against a pre-notification requirement rather than in favour of it. The Court recognises that a number of member States require the consent of the subject before private material is disclosed. However, it is not persuaded that the need for consent in some States can be taken to constitute evidence of a European consensus as far as a pre-notification requirement is concerned. Nor has the applicant pointed to any international instruments which require States to put in place a pre-notification requirement. Indeed, as the Court has noted above (see paragraph 119), the current system in the United Kingdom fully reflects the resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (see paragraphs 56–59 above). The Court therefore concludes that the respondent State's margin of appreciation in the present case is a wide one.

The applicant considered that the duty should be triggered where any aspect of private life was engaged. It would therefore not be limited to the intended disclosure of intimate or sexual details of private life. As such, the duty would be a relatively broad one. Notwithstanding the concerns expressed by the Government and the interveners (see paragraphs 89, 94, 97 and 101 above) the Court considers that the concept of ‘private life’ is sufficiently well understood for newspapers and reporters to be able to identify when a publication could infringe the right to respect for private life. Specific considerations would arise, for example in the context of photographs of crowds, but suitable provisions could be included in any law. The Court is further of the view that a satisfactory definition of those who would be subject to the requirement could be found. It would appear possible, for example, to provide for a duty which would apply to those within the purview of the Editors' Code.

However, the Court is persuaded that concerns regarding the effectiveness of a pre-notification duty in practice are not unjustified. Two considerations arise. First, it is generally accepted that any pre-notification obligation would require some form of ‘public interest’ exception (see paragraphs 83, 89, 94, 97 and 102 above). Thus a newspaper could opt not to notify a subject if it believed that it could subsequently defend its decision on the basis of the public interest. The Court considers that in order to prevent a serious chilling effect on freedom of expression, a reasonable belief that there was a ‘public interest’ at stake would have to be sufficient to justify non-notification, even if it were subsequently held that no such ‘public interest’ arose. The parties' submissions appeared to differ on whether ‘public interest’ should be limited to a specific public interest in not notifying (for example, where there was a risk of destruction of evidence) or extend to a more general public interest in publication of the material. The Court would observe that a narrowly defined public interest exception would increase the chilling effect of any pre-notification duty.

In the present case, the defendant newspaper relied on the belief of the reporter and the editor that the sexual activities in which the applicant participated had Nazi overtones. They accordingly argued that publication was justified in the public interest. Although Eady J criticised the casual and cavalier manner in which the News of the World had arrived at the conclusion that there was a Nazi element, he noted that there was significant scope for differing views on the assessment of the ‘public interest’ and concluded that he was not in a position to accept that the journalist and editor concerned must have known at the time that no public interest defence could succeed (see paragraphs 23–24 above). Thus, in the applicant's own case, it is not unlikely that even had a legally binding pre-notification requirement been in place at the relevant time, the News of the World would have chosen not to notify in any event, relying at that time on a public interest exception to justify publication.

Second, and more importantly, any pre-notification requirement would only be as strong as the sanctions imposed for failing to observe it. A regulatory or civil fine, unless set at a punitively high level, would be unlikely to deter newspapers from publishing private material without pre-notification. In the applicant's case, there is no doubt that one of the main reasons, if not the only reason, for failing to seek his comments was to avoid the possibility of an injunction being sought and granted (see paragraphs 21 and 52 above). Thus the News of the World chose to run the risk that the applicant would commence civil proceedings after publication and that it might, as a result of those proceedings, be required to pay damages. In any future case to which a pre-notification requirement applied, the newspaper in question could choose to run the same risk and decline to notify, preferring instead to incur an ex post facto fine.

Although punitive fines or criminal sanctions could be effective in encouraging compliance with any pre-notification requirement, the Court considers that these would run the risk of being incompatible with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention. It reiterates in this regard the need to take particular care when examining restraints which might operate as a form of censorship prior to publication. It is satisfied that the threat of criminal sanctions or punitive fines would create a chilling effect which would be felt in the spheres of political reporting and investigative journalism, both of which attract a high level of protection under the Convention.

As noted above, the conduct of the newspaper in the applicant's case is open to severe criticism. Aside from publication of the articles detailing the applicant's sexual activities, the News of the World published photographs and video footage, obtained through clandestine recording, which undoubtedly had a far greater impact than the articles themselves. Despite the applicant's efforts in a number of jurisdictions, these images are still available on the Internet. The Court can see no possible additional contribution made by the audiovisual material (see paragraph 115 above), which appears to have been included in the News of the World's coverage merely to titillate the public and increase the embarrassment of the applicant.

The Court, like the Parliamentary Assembly, recognises that the private lives of those in the public eye have become a highly lucrative commodity for certain sectors of the media (see paragraph 57 above). The publication of news about such persons contributes to the variety of information available to the public and, although generally for the purposes of entertainment rather than education, undoubtedly benefits from the protection of Article 10. However, as noted above, such protection may cede to the requirements of Article 8 where the information at stake is of a private and intimate nature and there is no public interest in its dissemination. In this regard the Court takes note of the recommendation of the Select Committee that the Editors' Code be amended to include a requirement that journalists should normally notify the subject of their articles prior to publication, subject to a ‘public interest’ exception (see paragraph 53 above).

However, the Court has consistently emphasised the need to look beyond the facts of the present case and to consider the broader impact of a pre-notification requirement. The limited scope under Article 10 for restrictions on the freedom of the press to publish material which contributes to debate on matters of general public interest must be borne in mind. Thus, having regard to the chilling effect to which a pre-notification requirement risks giving rise, to the significant doubts as to the effectiveness of any pre-notification requirement and to the wide margin of appreciation in this area, the Court is of the view that Article 8 does not require a legally binding pre-notification requirement. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention by the absence of such a requirement in domestic law.