1. Was there an infringement of the applicants' right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08 , § 83, 7 February 2012; and Larrañaga Arando and Others v. Spain (dec.), Nos. 73911/16, 233/17 3086/17 and 5155/17, § 42, 25 June 2019) with regard in particular to the allegations made by GA in the disputed book and documentary?
The other interesting point in the Axel Springer case is that he was seen as having “actively sought the limelight” which reduced his “legitimate expectation” that his private life would be protected.
That was a point made in the McCann case, that they had voluntarily become public figures, which meant they couldn't expect the same protection of their privacy as less public people can expect.
Axel Springer AG is a German publishing company, not an actor. They own Bild, the daily newspaper which printed the story about a famous German actor's arrest in 2004 for possession of Cocaine. He played a police detective in a long-running TV series. As a public figure in Germany, the actor enjoyed less right to a private life in Germany as far as the media were concerned. (Think George Michael).
The McCanns were not public figures with any influence over Portuguese society prior to Madeleine's disappearance. The subsequent publicity they sought was purely to seek help in locating Madeleine and not for self-promotion or influence in any capacity.
Therefore, imo, there is a marked difference in the 2 cases regarding the status of a public figure as per article 8.
*Edited to alter public to private
