Original sentence: Caroline appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court which affirmed the Supreme Court's judgement.Caroline invoked the judgment in combination with articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Basic Law (human dignity and personal freedom, respectively) as well as § 22 of the German Art and Photography Copyright Act or KunstUrhG (no publication of personal images without permission) in a new domestic case, attempting to get the courts to prohibit publication of certain images of her in a private setting.The Supreme Court accepted her claim with regards to two images, but did not prohibit publication of a third, stating that the image accompanied an article about a subject of public interest, which allows publication without permission per § 23 of the KunstUrhG.This time, the court found that the domestic courts had properly weighed the competing interests of Caroline's privacy and the press' right to freedom of expression, and thus found that there had been no violation of Article 8.Unsatisfied with this result, Caroline filed a new complaint with the European Court of Human Rights
Edited sentence: The case concerned, for instance, the publication of pictures of her taken secretly at the Beach Club in Monte Carlo, but the lack of implementation of the European Court of Human Rights judgement in Germany led to a second round of proceedings before the Strasbourg Court.This time five NGOs filed their observations in support of paparazzi, and the Princess lost her case