Mosley v United Kingdom

Last updated

Mosley v United Kingdom [2011] 53 E.H.R.R. 30 was a 2011 decision in the European Court of Human Rights regarding the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. An application to the court was made by Max Mosley, the former president of the FIA, after his successful breach of confidence legal case against the News of the World (known as Mosley v News Group Newspapers [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB)). In that case, the court unanimously rejected the proposition that Article 8 required member states of the Council of Europe to legislate to prevent newspapers printing stories regarding individual private lives without first warning the individuals concerned. It instead held that it fell within each state's margin of appreciation to determine whether to legislate on that matter.

Contents

Application

On 29 September 2008, Mosley filed an application to the court by claiming Articles 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached by the United Kingdom failing to impose a legal duty on the News of the World to notify him in advance of publication of the story. That would allow him the opportunity to seek an interim injunction and thus to prevent publication. [1] If the court decided that there was admissibility in the application, [2] Mosley argued that the damages awarded to him by the High Court were an insufficient remedy.

Mosley challenged the state of English privacy law by arguing for a doctrine of prior disclosure, which would require journalists to give at least two days' notice of intention to print stories about the misbehavior of a public figure so that a judge, rather than just an editor, could decide whether the story should be published. John Kampfner, the chief executive of the human rights group Index on Censorship, and author of Freedom for Sale, argued that a doctrine of prior disclosure would stifle investigative journalism [3] and damage press freedom.

The case was fast-tracked through the European Court of Human Rights [4] and, in addition to the United Kingdom government’s case, a brief in opposition [5] was prepared by the human rights lawyers Geoffrey Robertson QC and Mark Stephens at the instance of a number of media organisations including Media Legal Defence Initiative, Index on Censorship, European Publishers Council, the Media international Lawyers Association, Romanian Helsinki Committee, Global Witness, Media Law Resource Centre and The Bulgarian Access to Information Committee. [6] On 11 January 2011, a hearing was held by a Chamber of the Court. [7] Lord Pannick QC and David Sherborne appeared for Max Mosley, James Eadie QC and A. Jeeves for the United Kingdom.

Decision

In its decision, given on 10 May 2011, the court stated that "it is clear that no sum of money award after disclosure of the impugned material could afford a remedy in respect of the specific complaint advanced by the applicant". [8] It dismissed the United Kingdom government's contention that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. [8] It added that "the present case resulted in a flagrant and unjustified invasion of the applicant’s private life" [8] and reiterated 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". It said the "conduct of the newspaper in the applicant's case is open to severe criticism" and took "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." [9]

However, judges found in favour of the United Kingdom and ruled that domestic law was not in conflict with the Convention. [10] The court ruled that although there was a clear obligation to ensure that personal privacy was protected, there were existing protections in place, including the options of referral to the Press Complaints Commission and the possibility of seeking civil damages. [11] The court ruled that the damages awarded under the earlier case at the English High Court represented an adequate remedy in respect of the breach of Mosley's rights.

The case was widely followed and reported in the mainstream media, with The Daily Telegraph describing the case as "a significant victory for free speech". [12] Several papers compared the case with the wave of privacy injunctions in the United Kingdom at the time, the so-called superinjunctions, but although both involve privacy law, they are not related legally. Others commentators criticised tabloid coverage of the case. For instance, Richard Peppiatt in The Guardian accused the tabloid press of "quote-picking" and downplaying elements of the judgment, including the court's reaffirmation of Mosley's 'victim status' and its admonition of the conduct of the News of the World in relation to Mosley. [13]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Convention on Human Rights</span> International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

Barbora Bukovská is a Czech-Slovak human rights attorney and activist, known for her work on racial discrimination of Romani people in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Before anti-discrimination laws were adopted, she initiated the first Czech strategic litigation cases concerning discrimination against Romani people in access to public services, housing, employment and within the criminal justice system, and used the courts to bring a change in the law.

Evans v. the United Kingdom was a key case at the European Court of Human Rights. The case outcome could have had a major impact on fertility law, not only within the United Kingdom but also the other Council of Europe countries.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.

Privacy in English law is a rapidly developing area of English law that considers situations where individuals have a legal right to informational privacy - the protection of personal or private information from misuse or unauthorized disclosure. Privacy law is distinct from those laws such as trespass or assault that are designed to protect physical privacy. Such laws are generally considered as part of criminal law or the law of tort. Historically, English common law has recognized no general right or tort of privacy, and offered only limited protection through the doctrine of breach of confidence and a "piecemeal" collection of related legislation on topics like harassment and data protection. The introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated into English law the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8.1 of the ECHR provided an explicit right to respect for a private life. The Convention also requires the judiciary to "have regard" to the Convention in developing the common law.

Von Hannover v Germany [2004] was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 2004. The Court ruled that German law breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Latvian Human Rights Committee</span>

Latvian Human Rights Committee is a non-governmental human rights organization in Latvia. It is a member of international human rights and anti-racism NGOs FIDH, AEDH. Co-chairpersons of LHRC are Vladimir Buzayev and Natalia Yolkina. According to the authors of the study "Ethnopolitics in Latvia", former CBSS Commissioner on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Ole Espersen "had visited LHRC various times and had used mostly the data of that organisation in his views on Latvia".

<i>Beghal v DPP</i>

Beghal v DPP was a 2015 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning powers of the police in England and Wales.

Zakharov v. Russia was a 2015 court case before the European Court of Human Rights involving Roman Zakharov and the Russian Federation. The Court ruled that Russia's legal provisions governing communications surveillance did not provide adequate safeguards against arbitrariness or abuse, and that therefore a violation took place of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

<i>Chiragov and Others v. Armenia</i> International human rights case

Chiragov v. Armenia was an international human rights case regarding the rights to property of Azeri nationals in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of former Soviet Azerbaijan. The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by six Azerbaijani nationals on 6 April 2005. The applicants alleged, in particular, that they were prevented from returning to the district of Lachin in territory occupied by the respondent Government, that they were thus unable to enjoy their property and homes located there, and that they had not received any compensation for their losses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Anderson, Baron Anderson of Ipswich</span> British barrister and life peer (born 1961)

David William Kinloch Anderson, Baron Anderson of Ipswich, is a British barrister and life peer, who was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in the United Kingdom between 2011 and 2017. On 8 June 2018 it was announced that he would be introduced to the House of Lords as a cross-bench (non-party) working peer. On the same day he was appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE), for services to national security and civil liberties, in the Queen's 2018 Birthday Honours.

E.S v. Austria was a case held before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case where the court upheld a domestic court's fine on an Austrian woman who had called Mohammed a pedophile.

Slovenian Disability Rights Association is a disability rights organization in Slovenia. Its goals are to enhance the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to assist persons with disabilities through awareness raising and impact litigation. Drupis was founded in 2012.

M.C. and Others v Italy is a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 3 September 2013 in which Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) was engaged due to the applicants not being afforded annual uprating which the court deemed damage to their property of a disproportionate character in the form of an exorbitant charge. The Strasbourg ruling sets an important precedent for higher monthly compensation payments to be paid to the 60,000 or so victims of contaminated blood transfusions in Italy. The effect of this ruling increased payments to the applicants by 40%.

Fedotova and Others v. Russia was a case submitted by six Russian nationals to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

Bayev and Others v. Russia was a case brought to the European Court of Human Rights by three Russian activists—Nikolay Bayev, Aleksei Aleksandrovich Kiselev, and Nikolay Alekseyev—alleging that the Russian gay propaganda law infringed on their freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 20 June 2017, the court ruled that the applicants' freedom of expression had been compromised. The only dissent was from Dmitry Dedov, the judge elected with respect to Russia.

<i>Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan</i>

Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan was an international human rights case regarding the rights of Armenian refugees displaced from former Soviet Azerbaijan because of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Minas Sargsyan on 11 August 2006. He was forced to flee his home in the village of Gulistan in Shahumyan region of former Soviet Azerbaijan, together with his family, because of the Azerbaijani bombardments of the village and was not allowed to return and unable to get any compensation from the Azerbaijani authorities. Even though the applicant died in 2009, as did his widow, Lena Sargsyan, in 2014, his children, Vladimir and Tsovinar Sargsyan, represented him in court to continue the proceedings.

References

  1. ↑ "HUDOC Search Page". Cmiskp.echr.coe.int. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
  2. ↑ Archived March 31, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  3. ↑ Rawlinson, Kevin (26 February 2010). "Mosley case on privacy laws 'is being fast-tracked' - Europe - World". The Independent. London. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
  4. ↑ David Leigh (31 March 2010). "Media groups lobby Strasbourg over Max Mosley 'threat to freedom' | Media". London: theguardian.com. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
  5. ↑ "MLDI intervention helps defeat prior notification demand | Media Legal Defence Initiative". Mediadefence.org. 10 May 2011. Archived from the original on 29 October 2013. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
  6. ↑ [ dead link ]
  7. ↑ "Factsheets". Echr.coe.int. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
  8. 1 2 3 "Mosley v UK" (PDF). Retrieved 27 February 2018.
  9. ↑ "European court of human rights judgment on Max Mosley: conclusion". The Guardian. 10 May 2011. Retrieved 27 February 2018.
  10. ↑ Clive Coleman (10 May 2011). "BBC News - Max Mosley loses European court privacy law bid". Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
  11. ↑ "HUDOC Search Page". Cmiskp.echr.coe.int. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
  12. ↑ "Max Mosley loses European Court privacy case". The Telegraph . London. 10 May 2011. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
  13. ↑ Peppiatt, Richard (11 May 2011). "Britain's freedoms weren't at risk in the Max Mosley case – tabloid editors' were". The Guardian . London. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.