Scottish Human Rights Law Group

The Court, by 5-2, upheld the domestic courts’ margin of appreciation in awarding compensation to the departing Federal President and his wife, herself head of the American department of the Foreign Affairs ministry, in respect of a newspaper article about rumours of marital difficulty.

The majority rejected the arguments that the article satirised the gossip of the Viennese “upper crust”, that the Presidential couple had made PR capital of their relationship and that he had campaigned on a family values platform. Even public figures had a right to respect for their private lives. The litmus test was whether the publication contributed to a debate of general interest. The president’s marriage was not germane to his carrying out of official functions in the way that, on occasion, a politician’s health might be. However, in a strong dissent, Judges Jebens and Spielman suggested that “it is important that the Court does not take a paternalistic view, and try to decide for people what the true meaning of public interest is.”

This case is available to read in full here