The question of the balance between privacy and freedom of expression The tribunal observed that the protection given by Article 9 applies to anonymous and famous persons alike and that anybody can claim reparation for the revelation to the public of facts regarding their personal and family life (this protection had, indeed, been granted by the courts to famous persons such as politicians; see for instance:
Van den Bulck & de Bellefroid ). The tribunal also referred to the European Convention on Human Rights which requires courts to balance the right to a private life with the freedom of expression by determining whether the disclosed information contributes to a debate of general interest and is not exclusively focused on details of the private life.
The tribunals task was thus to determine whether the publication of the information about the couples separation contributed to a debate of general interest. The tribunal made a distinction between the announcement of the couples separation which contributed to this debate, and the disclosure of intimate details about the separation which did not.
The separation of a famous political couple is a newsworthy item and its announcement does not breach the right to a private life To rule that the publication of the separation announcement was a news item contributing to a debate of general interest, the tribunal observed that Nicolas and Cécilia formed a famous political couple. The tribunal noted that the couple had been in the media long before the defendants articles were published. This presence in the media was explained by the fact they both held public office and worked together. Furthermore, the tribunal pointed that they had actively promoted their coupledom image in the media as an advantageous, synergistic personal and professional relationship. So much so, the tribunal explained, that beyond their personal celebrity, their couple had acquired a public nature, notably leading journalists to comparisons with other famous couples like the Kennedys or the Clintons. In doing so, the tribunal observed, Sarkozy had himself stretched the boundaries of the protection granted by Article 9.
The tribunal thus concluded that it was not illegitimate for the newspaper to report the separation which was a news item [
] given the [public] status of the couple.
The publication of intimate details and speculations surrounding this separation is a breach of private life. However, the tribunal pointed to other articles with titles such as Sarkozy dumped by Cécilia; Cécilia asks for divorce!; Richard: Cécilias new love!; Nicolas cheated on Cécilia too.
The tribunal observed that in these articles, the newspaper had, along with the announcement of the separation, reported facts and speculations regarding the extra-marital affairs of the spouses, their divorce, or the whereabouts of their son during the separation.
In doing so, the tribunal ruled, the newspaper which had not reported known or harmless facts useful to a debate of general interest, had breached Sarkozys private life. The newspaper was sentenced to pay 1 in damages.
Conclusion This decision is consistent with French case-law which has always been very protective of the private life of all citizens, including politicians. In this case, which involved a famous (and media-savvy) political couple, the tribunal has drawn the line between the announcement of the separation which was newsworthy and the publication of intimate details and speculations surrounding this separation which was a breach of private life.
Cécilia is now back with Nicolas and assisting him with preparations for the presidential campaign. However, the episode of their much-publicised separation seems to have reduced their appetite for media exposure. Sarkozy, by putting forward his spouse and kids as a communication vehicle for his political ambition, had introduced in French politics what was scornfully described as an Anglo-Saxon model of politics where the emphasis is, allegedly, put on the image and personality of a politician rather than on his ideas.
After the unfortunate turn of events in his relationship, Sarkozy seems to have reverted to the French political status quo whereby French politicians do not use their family life as a political tool and the media generally regards their private lives as off limits.
The tribunals decision reflects this traditional balance between privacy and freedom of expression. French politicians should be wary of upsetting this balance: the choice of an Anglo-Saxon model of political campaigning might lead to an Anglo-Saxon model of journalism and privacy rights.
References TGI Thonon les Bains, 22 septembre 2006 [legalis.net]. Le journal « Le Matin » condamné pour atteinte à la vie privée de Nicolas Sarkozy. Legalis.net, 25 janvier 2007. Paul Van den Bulck & Marie de Bellefroid, Même M. Sarkozy a droit à sa vie privée. Le TGI le rappelle à qui l'aurait oublié. Droit-technologie.org, 2 Février 2007. 
Nicolas Sarkozy, the French Interior Minister and presidential candidate for the centre-right UMP party, has won a privacy case against a Swiss newspaper which had published information about his marital difficulties. The tribunal held that, though the announcement of his couples separation did not breach his private life, the publication of details and allegations surrounding the separation did. 
SUBSCRIBE TO THE RSS FEED