ŽVAGULIS v. LITHUANIA
Inadmissible
András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
1. The applicant, Mr Žilvinas Žvagulis, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Vilnius. He was represented before the Court by Ms L. Meškauskaitė, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. 2. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their former Agent, Ms E. Baltutytė. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. The applicant is a singer and well-known person in the entertainment industry in Lithuania. 5. On 9 November 2006 the applicant received a call on his personal mobile telephone from a journalist at the newspaper “L.T.”. The journalist informed the applicant that he was in possession of information regarding the fact that the applicant had fathered a child outside marriage. The information was to be published in a forthcoming issue of the newspaper. 6. The applicant did not consent to the publication, and on the following day obtained a court injunction prohibiting the newspaper from publishing the information. 7. Notwithstanding the injunction, on 11 November 2006 the newspaper went ahead with the publication. The article was called “Žvagulis hides his son born outside marriage”, and was printed on pages nine and eleven of the newspaper, with a large headline on the front page. The article included statements such as: “L.T. reveals that a famous singer has not three, but four children”; “Žvagulis’s secret – a child born outside marriage”; “the boy does not know that his father is a famous singer”; “before marrying I.S., a singer [the applicant’s current wife], Ž. Žvagulis had a short, yet passionate love affair with L.”; “Žilvinas did not disappear from the woman’s life”; “passionate love affairs fade over time. Nevertheless, sometimes children who come into the world and are rejected by their fathers remain a reminder of such affairs. Such a shadow of the past caught up with the famous singer Žilvinas Žvagulis”; and “there will be much gossip following the publication of information about Žvagulis’s child born outside marriage”. The names of the boy and his mother were changed in the article, which also pointed out the fact that the boy’s mother was a dancer in a famous dance group in Lithuania. 8. In addition, on the second page of the same issue, an article entitled “Hostages of love” appeared, describing the applicant’s private life as the journalists imagined it to be. 9. On 18 November 2006 L.T. printed another article entitled “Marčiulionis in the arms of a new woman”. The article stated that “on 6 November, while partying, Ž. Žvagulis was restless. Needless to say, there were plenty of young women at the party”. 10. The applicant started court proceedings for breach of privacy and damage to his reputation. He claimed that the publications had caused him serious humiliation, as well as great distress to both him and his family. He also claimed that the newspaper had recorded his telephone conversation with the journalist without prior permission. The applicant requested that 100,001 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 28,960 euros (EUR)) be awarded to him in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant also asked that the newspaper be fined LTL 1,000 for having disregarded the court order prohibiting the publication (see paragraph 6 above). 11. By a decision of 25 October 2007 the Vilnius Regional Court concluded that the newspaper had breached the applicant’s right to privacy, which was protected under Article 8 of the Convention. The court found that the applicant’s wife and the child’s mother had attempted to persuade the newspaper’s chief editor and the journalist who had written the article not to publish it. The two women had not been successful. On the contrary, the newspaper had blackmailed the child’s mother to make her portray the applicant in a negative light, in return, promising not to disclose the identity of the child. 12. The Vilnius Regional Court held that the fact that the applicant’s son had been conceived out of marriage was a matter relating to his private life, and, despite being a singer, the applicant did not come under the category of public figures. Moreover, even if the applicant could be considered a public figure, this would not give grounds to publish the information in question, given that there was no public interest in disclosing the fact that he had fathered the child. The publisher’s and the journalist’s argument that she had been aiming to disclose a story about how famous men did not raise or take care of their own children was devoid of substance. On the contrary, the court established that the child’s mother had no claim against the applicant to the effect that he did not take care of the child. Quite the contrary, the child had a father whom he knew to be his father. The court agreed with the finding of the Inspector of Journalistic Ethics that the information in this particular case had been published in a sensational manner, with a large headline on the front page, thereby seeking to satisfy the readers’ curiosity, and denying the applicant’s right to protection of his privacy, and also being in breach of journalistic ethics. The court emphasised that, according to the practice of the Supreme Court, the disclosure of information about a child being conceived out of wedlock was to be considered a violation of the right to a private life, even if that information concerned a public figure, because there was no public interest in making such information known. 13. In addition, the court found that the journalist had breached the applicant’s privacy by recording a telephone conversation with him without his consent (see paragraph 41 below), as well as by unlawfully observing or watching him, collecting information about him, and using that information in the article entitled “Marčiulionis in the arms of a new woman”. 14. As to the sum to be awarded in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the Vilnius Regional Court determined that the publication at issue had caused the applicant serious distress. Until then, only his wife and certain members of his family had known about what the publication had revealed. The court also attached importance to the fact that the newspaper had disregarded the court injunction and gone ahead with the publication of article, even though it had received that injunction in time to stop its publication. Moreover, the newspaper had had a large print run. Consequently, a large number of people had learnt about the relevant information. 15. However, the court observed that, prior to the present litigation, the applicant had been rather open with the mass media, having disclosed private matters such as the fact that he was having another child [with his wife] and details about that child’s birth. As a result, it was possible to conclude that up to the moment when the information at issue had become public, the applicant had not vigilantly protected his private life from the media, and had not considered his private life to have great value. For the court, that particular aspect of the case allowed it to lower the compensation award for non-pecuniary damage to LTL 10,000 (EUR 2,900), an award to cover all the violations of privacy. 16. The court also ordered the newspaper to pay the applicant LTL 3,254 in respect of legal costs. The applicant, in turn, was ordered to pay LTL 606, the newspaper’s legal costs, on the basis that legal costs are reimbursed proportionately in relation to the claims granted (Article 93 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, see paragraph 40 below). 17. The applicant appealed. On 4 March 2008 the Court of Appeal partly upheld the first instance court’s decision. The court observed that, whilst the applicant was a singer and therefore had to be tolerant of media attention, he still retained the right to determine the boundaries of his private life, which no one had the right to cross without his consent. The information at issue had been made public without his consent. Moreover, that information was purely private and the publication thereof had had no connection to the applicant’s professional activities. The court of first instance had been correct in finding that the aim of disclosing the information had been to cause a sensation, and not to inform society about matters of public interest. The publication had caused the applicant distress, and this was clearly proved by his wish to prevent public disclosure by obtaining a court injunction. 18. The appellate court noted that, according to the guidelines of the Supreme Court, the circumstances of any particular situation had to be evaluated when assessing non-pecuniary damage. In the light of the facts of the case, the Court of Appeal considered that the sum of LTL 10,000 which had been awarded was too low to compensate for the non-pecuniary damage the applicant had sustained. Given that there had actually been two violations of privacy in the case – the disclosure of information regarding the applicant having a child outside marriage, which was the more serious breach, and information about his behaviour at a party – it was appropriate to make two separate awards. On that basis, the appellate court awarded the applicant LTL 20,000 for the first breach of privacy and LTL 5,000 for the second. The court observed that there was no legal basis for a larger award, particularly given the Supreme Court’s guidelines that, when determining the sum to be awarded, it was necessary to take into account the economic situation of the country and the standard of living of its citizens. The newspaper was also ordered to cover the applicant’s legal costs in respect of the part of the civil claim which had been allowed. 19. On the basis of Article 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court of Appeal also imposed a fine of LTL 1,000 on the newspaper, the maximum amount possible, for disregarding the court injunction forbidding it from going ahead with the publication of information breaching the applicant’s right to a private life. The Court of Appeal established that the newspaper had received the court injunction in time, but had failed to comply with it, thus grossly breaching the maxim that court rulings are imperative (see paragraph 40 below). 20. The applicant and the newspaper both lodged appeals on points of law. On 14 August 2008 the Supreme Court changed the decision of the Court of Appeal in part. The Supreme Court had regard to the need to balance rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention (it relied on Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, ECHR 2004IV, and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France, no. 71111/01, 14 June 2007). The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts’ reasoning to the effect that the applicant’s occupation did not automatically mean that he consented to the publication of all information about his private life. The information which had been disclosed was exclusively private; there was no public interest in society learning of it. Consequently, the court found that the newspaper had overstepped the boundaries prescribed by Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. 21. As to the question of non-pecuniary damage, the Supreme Court concurred with the lower courts that a mere finding of a violation of the applicant’s right to privacy would not be sufficient compensation. However, the Supreme Court deemed it important to ensure the continuity of its earlier case-law and take into consideration past awards in analogous cases. Given the scarcity of case-law on breach of privacy matters, it was necessary to consider the non-pecuniary value (neturtinė vertybė) which had been breached. The more important the value (for example, health or life), the more it was protected (the Court relied on its earlier ruling in case no. 3K3394/2006, see paragraph 29 below). Moreover, the right to a private life had to be balanced with another constitutional value – the right to disseminate information. Article 6.250 of the Civil Code provided a list of criteria to be taken into account when assessing compensation, also providing for court discretion in this matter. 22. Continuing with its assessment, the Supreme Court noted that the newspaper’s transgression had been deliberate, given that it had consciously chosen not to comply with the court injunction. However, the publication of the information had not carried grave or long-term consequences for the applicant, because his wife had known about his son who had been born outside marriage, and the applicant had discussed certain aspects of his private life with journalists on many occasions in the past, and was used to media attention. All this was relevant when assessing compensation for nonpecuniary damage. Moreover, the lower courts had not established that, by breaching the applicant’s right to a private life, the newspaper had attempted to obtain economic gain, for example by printing more copies of the newspaper, and such a point was relevant when determining compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 23. In the light of the above, the Supreme Court concluded that the firstinstance court had properly examined all of the relevant circumstances, and taking into consideration, inter alia, the sums awarded as compensation in similar cases, had reasonably awarded the applicant LTL 10,000. That decision was to stay in force. 24. Lastly, the Supreme Court reviewed the issue of legal costs, in the light of Article 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 40 below), and lowered the costs of representation to be reimbursed to the newspaper, because they were higher than those recommended by the Lithuanian Bar Association. Once all the sums in respect of both parties’ representation at the three levels of court had been calculated, the applicant had to pay the newspaper LTL 2,136 for legal costs and court fees. He therefore received LTL 7,864 (approximately EUR 2,280) following the civil litigation. 25. In February 2011 the newspaper Private printed an article about the applicant’s family life, where he and his wife I.S. were interviewed about their family. They stated that they were able to lean on each other at any time. 26. Article 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania reads: “A person’s private life shall be inviolable... The law and the courts shall protect everyone from arbitrary or unlawful interference in his private and family life, or from encroachment upon his honour and dignity.” 27. Article 30 of the Constitution provides that compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by a person must be established by law. 28. The relevant provisions of the Civil Code read: “1. A person’s privacy shall be inviolable. Information regarding a person’s private life may be made public only with his consent... 2. Unlawful invasion of a person’s dwelling or other private premises, including fenced private territory; keeping the person’s private life under observation ...; intentional interception of the person’s telephone communications, post or other private communications, as well as violation of the confidentiality of his personal notes and information; publication of data relating to the state of his health, in violation of the procedure prescribed by law; and other unlawful acts shall be deemed to violate the person’s private life. 3. The creation of a file on another person’s private life, in violation of the law, shall be prohibited. A person may not be denied access to the information contained in the file, except as otherwise provided for by law. Dissemination of the information collected on the person’s private life shall be prohibited unless, taking into consideration the person’s official post and his status in the society, dissemination of the said information is in line with a lawful and well-grounded public interest in being aware of that information. 4. The public announcement of facts concerning a person’s private life, however truthful they may be; making private correspondence public, in violation of the procedure prescribed in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article; invasion of a person’s dwelling without his consent, except as otherwise provided for by law; keeping his private life under observation; or gathering information about him in violation of the law; and other unlawful acts infringing the right to privacy shall form the basis for bringing an action for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of those acts...” “1. Non-pecuniary damage shall be deemed to be a person’s suffering, emotional experiences, inconvenience, mental shock, emotional depression, humiliation, damage to reputation, diminution of opportunities to associate with others, and so on, evaluated by a court in terms of money. 2. Non-pecuniary damage shall be compensated for only in cases provided for by law. Non-pecuniary damage shall be compensated for in all cases where it has been sustained as a result of crime, health impairment or deprivation of life, as well as in other cases provided for by law. The courts, in evaluating the non-pecuniary damage, shall take into consideration the consequences of the damage sustained, the degree of fault on the part of the person who caused the damage, his financial status, the amount of pecuniary damage sustained by the aggrieved person, and any other circumstances of importance to the case, as well as the criteria of good faith, justice and reasonableness.” 29. On 12 June 2006 the Supreme Court decided civil case no. 3K3394/2006. The plaintiff had asked to be awarded LTL 40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, which he had suffered as a result of physical injury. He had been attacked by three people and beaten, thereby suffering facial injuries and being rendered disabled. The Supreme Court held that health was one of the most important values, which was often not repairable or restorable. Health therefore merited particular protection. The court also took into account that the non-pecuniary damage in this case had been caused by a crime – the deliberate and brutal actions of the respondents. It was therefore fair to grant the civil claim in full. 30. As regards the amounts awarded for non-pecuniary damage to redress breaches of privacy, the Government referred to a number of Supreme Court decisions. In cases concerning the reputation of a legal entity, for example, the awards were between LTL 15,000 and LTL 20,000. The Government also referred to cases where protected values other than privacy had been at issue. In cases concerning injury to one’s health, the awards for non-pecuniary damage were between LTL 6,000-8,000 and LTL 20,000-50,000, depending on the severity of the injury. In cases concerning loss of life, compensation awards for non-pecuniary damage were between LTL 6,000 to LTL 40,000. In cases where the right to liberty had been violated, the awards were between LTL 3,000 to LTL 7,000. 31. In case no. 3K-3-450/250, decided on 6 September 2006, which concerned an injury at work, the Supreme Court held that, when evaluating the amount of non-pecuniary damage, it was important to consider the values being protected and their interrelationship (turi būti atsižvelgta į ginamų vertybių specifiką ir jų tarpusavio santykį), because the right to life and the right to health were absolute rights, whereas the right to privacy and the right to dignity were relative or conditional rights (santykinės teisės) which could not be equally valued as regards damages. A worker who had fallen off a building platform and cracked his skull was thus awarded LTL 25,000 for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of that injury. On 18 April 2007 the Supreme Court gave a ruling in civil case no. 3K3-157/2007 concerning an accident at work following which the plaintiff in question had become handicapped. The Supreme Court noted that the worker was partly to blame for his injury, because he had not followed safety instructions at work. Accordingly, although the plaintiff had asked for LTL 150,000 and the first-instance court had awarded him LTL 100,000, the Supreme Court considered that a sum of LTL 50,000 would be sufficient to compensate for the non-pecuniary damage suffered. On 20 October 2008 the Supreme Court examined case no. 3K3529/2008, which also concerned an accident at work. The plaintiff in that case was awarded LTL 50,000 for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of physical injury. 32. On 16 March 2007, in civil case no. 3K-3-113/2007, the Supreme Court held that there had been a violation of the plaintiff’s right to privacy and reputation, owing to a publication about his allegedly fraudulent manner of conducting business and his alleged debts to his business partners, and the printing of the plaintiff’s photograph. For the Supreme Court, LTL 5,000 was sufficient to compensate for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. On 23 September 2008, in civil case no. 3K-3-394/2008, the Supreme Court agreed that an award of LTL 5,000 in a civil case was sufficient to compensate for the plaintiff’s mental suffering, where a local television station had wrongfully accused the plaintiff of having committed a traffic violation. 33. On 23 March 2010 the Supreme Court gave a ruling in civil case no. 3K-3-136/2010 concerning a civil claim by a woman, J.G., for breach of privacy in respect of an article in a daily newspaper, Respublika, entitled “A date with a lesbian” (“Pasimatymas su lesbiete”). The case concerned an article which had included eight photographs. J.G. was in one of those photographs, which was in a large format. She had been photographed from the front, although her name had not been disclosed. The first-instance court considered that, “taking into account society’s negative opinion about people of non-traditional sexual orientation” (“teismas, įvertinęs susidariusią neigiamą visuomenės nuomonę apie netradicinės seksualinės orientacijos žmones”), the publication of J.G.’s photograph in such a context could cause her to be evaluated oddly (galėjo sukelti prieštaringų ieškovės vertinimų). The court also noted that the newspaper’s financial situation was good, it had a large print throughout Lithuania. However, the newspaper had not apologised to the plaintiff or paid her damages, even though it had initially promised to do so. However, the sum claimed by the plaintiff, LTL 65,000, was clearly excessive. It was therefore reasonable to award her LTL 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. That sum was upheld by the appellate court, which underlined that the article “A date with a lesbian” was conflicting (vertinamas prieštaringai) in a homophobic society, and people whose photographs were linked to that article could therefore experience negative consequences, as indeed in J.G.’s case. She had had to explain herself to her parents, colleagues at work and friends from times of studies. The award of LTL 10,000 would also not impede the daily commercial activity of the defendant. 34. The newspaper lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing that the award for non-pecuniary damage was too high. The Supreme Court noted that it was important to adhere to the principle of non-discrimination, which meant that similar cases should be decided similarly, and which also meant that, in analogous situations, awards for non-pecuniary damage should be comparable. The Supreme Court also relied on its earlier case-law to the effect that courts should not only follow the criteria established in legal norms and court practice, but should also take into account the awards already granted in analogous cases. 35. The Supreme Court thus distinguished three categories of cases. Firstly, there were cases where a plaintiff’s privacy had been breached on account of the arrangement of his or her nude photographs with offensive text and headlines (the Supreme Court referred to the case of Dalius Mertinas and Laima Mertinienė), or where information regarding “family secrets” or health had been made public (the Supreme Court referred to its ruling of 14 August 2008 in the instant case of Žvagulis), or where information about private life had been published together with photographs, which had amounted to a breach of the right to a private life. The awards in those cases were, respectively, LTL 15,000, LTL 10,000 and LTL 8,000. As to the second category, the Supreme Court referred to some cases where the press had used plaintiffs’ private photographs without permission, or had accused them of crimes, where the non-pecuniary damage awards were LTL 5,000. The third category concerned cases where photographs of plaintiffs who were well-known people in society had been published without their consent, and for the purpose of a newspaper gaining financial benefit from advertisement, where the awards for non-pecuniary damage were LTL 1,500. 36. The Supreme Court then held that, in the case of J.G., the award of LTL 10,000 was too high, because it did not correspond to the abovementioned court practice. J.G.’s photograph had been published only as an illustration of the article, and neither her personal data nor information about her private life had been made public. Moreover, the photograph had been taken at a public event when J.G. was posing (viešame renginyje, ieškovei pozuojant). In the view of the Supreme Court, an award of LTL 5,000 would be fair and adequate in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained by J.G. in relation to the breach of her right to protection of her image, and to prevent the abuse of freedom of expression by the press. 37. On 15 November 2012 the Supreme Court adopted a ruling in civil case no. 3K-3-481/2012, which concerned R.C.’s civil claim for defamation against a television channel, Tele-3. In particular, R.C., who is a singer, had complained that in May 2009, during a television broadcast, a presenter had made statements about someone else allegedly being the father of R.C.’s child, had made allegations about R.C.’s actual sexual orientation, and, in the latter context, had also claimed that R.C. had been operated on in clinics in Kaunas several months ago after “he had sustained trauma to his anus from a blunt object”. 38. The Supreme Court held that information about R.C.’s fatherhood, his sexual orientation, and his unverified operation concerned his private life, notwithstanding R.C. being well-known because he was a singer. Moreover, disseminating such information had no public interest. On the contrary, having had regard to the manner in which the information had been presented, the Supreme Court held that the only aim in disseminating it had been to spread gossip to satisfy the curiosity of a certain category of television viewers. The fact that R.C. had communicated with the media before did not mean that he had lost his right to privacy. Having examined the case in the light of the Court’s case-law (Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, 7 February 2012, and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, ECHR 2012), the Supreme Court held that there had been a breach of R.C.’s right to privacy. 39. Although R.C. asked the courts to award him LTL 80,000 to compensate for the non-pecuniary damage, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts had correctly applied Article 6.250 of the Civil Code, and had had a proper basis for their decision to award R.C. LTL 10,000 in compensation. 40. The Code of Civil Procedure states: “1. A court decision, ruling or order which has come into force is obligatory ... [in respect of all persons] and must be executed ...” “1. A court orders the legal costs of the party to the proceedings in whose favour a court decision has been adopted to be paid by the other party to the proceedings ... 2. If a civil claim is granted in part, the plaintiff’s legal costs are awarded proportionately in relation to which part of the civil claim is granted, and the defendant’s legal costs are awarded proportionately in relation to which part of the civil claim is rejected. 3. The rules set out in this Article also apply to court fees ... 4. If the appellate court or court of cassation, without referring the case for fresh examination, changes a lower court’s decision or ruling, or adopts a new ruling, it accordingly changes the division of legal costs. If the appellate court or court of cassation does not change the division of legal costs, it is the court of first instance which has to resolve this question.” “1. If [temporary protective measures] are breached, the court may impose a fine of up to one thousand litas ...” 41. At the relevant time, with regard to the collection and publication of information, the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public (Visuomenės informavimo įstatymas) read that, in order to avoid violating a person’s rights and to protect his honour and dignity, it should be prohibited to film, photograph, or make audio or video-recordings of a person without his consent (Article 13 § 1 (1)). Journalists were also obliged not to make audio or video-recordings if the individual providing the information objected (Article 41 § 2(9)). The Journalists’ and Publishers’ Code of Ethics read that journalists or publishers should not use the recordings for direct quotes if an individual objected to this (Article 14). 42. On 23 January 1970 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution 428, containing a Declaration on Mass Communication Media and Human Rights, the relevant parts of which read: “15. There is an area in which the exercise of the right of freedom of information and freedom of expression may conflict with the right to privacy protected by Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights ... Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence ... The exercise of the former right must not be allowed to destroy the existence of the latter. 16. The right to privacy consists essentially in the right to live one’s own life with a minimum of interference. It concerns private, family and home life, physical and moral integrity, honour and reputation, avoidance of being placed in a false light, nonrevelation of irrelevant and embarrassing facts, unauthorised publication of private photographs, protection against misuse of private communications, protection from disclosure of information given or received by the individual confidentially. Those who, by their own actions, have encouraged indiscreet revelations about which they complain later on, cannot avail themselves of the right to privacy. 17. A particular problem arises as regards the privacy of persons in public life. The phrase ‘where public life begins, private life ends’ is inadequate to cover this situation. The private lives of public figures are entitled to protection, save where they may have an impact upon public events. The fact that an individual figures in the news does not deprive him of a right to a private life. ... 20. In order to counter these dangers, national law should provide a right of action enforceable at law against persons responsible for such infringements of the right to privacy. 21. The right to privacy afforded by Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights should not only protect an individual against interference by public authorities, but also against interference by private persons or institutions, including the mass media. National legislations should comprise provisions guaranteeing this protection.” 43. The relevant passages of Resolution 1165 (1998) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the right to privacy, adopted on 26 June 1998, read: “1. The Assembly recalls the current affairs debate it held on the right to privacy during its September 1997 session, a few weeks after the accident which cost the Princess of Wales her life. 2. On that occasion, some people called for the protection of privacy, and in particular that of public figures, to be reinforced at the European level by means of a convention, while others believed that privacy was sufficiently protected by national legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights, and that freedom of expression should not be jeopardised. ... 4. The right to privacy, guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, has already been defined by the Assembly in the declaration on mass communication media and human rights, contained within Resolution 428 (1970), as ‘the right to live one’s own life with a minimum of interference’. 5. In view of the new communication technologies which make it possible to store and use personal data, the right to control one’s own data should be added to this definition. 6. The Assembly is aware that personal privacy is often invaded, even in countries with specific legislation to protect it, as people’s private lives have become a highly lucrative commodity for certain sectors of the media. The victims are essentially public figures, since details of their private lives serve as a stimulus to sales. At the same time, public figures must recognise that the position they occupy in society – in many cases by choice – automatically entails increased pressure on their privacy. 7. Public figures are persons holding public office and/or using public resources and, more broadly speaking, all those who play a role in public life, whether in politics, the economy, the arts, the social sphere, sport or in any other domain. 8. It is often in the name of a one-sided interpretation of the right to freedom of expression, which is guaranteed in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that the media invade people’s privacy, claiming that their readers are entitled to know everything about public figures. 9. Certain facts relating to the private lives of public figures, particularly politicians, may indeed be of interest to citizens, and it may therefore be legitimate for readers, who are also voters, to be informed of those facts. 10. It is therefore necessary to find a way of balancing the exercise of two fundamental rights, both of which are guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to respect for one’s private life and the right to freedom of expression. 11. The Assembly reaffirms the importance of every person’s right to privacy, and of the right to freedom of expression, as fundamental to a democratic society. These rights are neither absolute nor in any hierarchical order, since they are of equal value. 12. However, the Assembly points out that the right to privacy afforded by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights should not only protect an individual against interference by public authorities, but also against interference by private persons or institutions, including the mass media. ...”