Right to Privacy of Public Figures and Freedom of Expression in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Searching for Balance

Abstract

The right to privacy of public figures which falls under the scope of Article 8 (right to private and family life) and the freedom of expression of the media which is protected by Article 10 conflict in many situations. The definition of privacy varies depending on the context and environment. It is often claimed to be the right to be left alone, and to determine for a human being when, how and to what extent personal information about them is communicated to others. Privacy includes personal medical records, expenditure, correspondence, home, relationships, physical and emotional autonomy. Freedom of expression is considered to be one of the important features of a democratic society. It entails to receive, impart and seek information as well as ideas, even if they are shocking and offensive to a particular group of persons. European Court of Human Rights pointed out that “journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation”. A publication that reveals intimate details of family life of a public official or a politician running for office may or may not serve the purpose of public debate. Some authors argue that a genuine conflict between Articles 8 and 10 European Convention on Human Rights only arises in a narrow range of cases, such as ‘where publication relates to the personal life of a particular figure, but there is a serious argument that it serves a valuable purpose in revealing a matter relevant to that person’s fitness for office’. The absence of protection against press intrusions or the disclosure in the media of highly intimate, non-defamatory details of private life has not yet been subject to significant challenge in Strasbourg. The scope of public figures in this paper is narrowed to the ones whose functions are connected to public duties and political matters, without touching upon the situation of celebrities since their role in the society has a function of entertainment. This paper researches the problem by analyzing four judgments of the Court and offers possible direction for balancing these two important but not absolute rights.