Former Formula 1 boss Max Mosley has failed in his attempt to force the media to give individuals advance warning before publishing stories about their private lives.

A judgment handed down today (10 May) by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that the media do not need to give prior notice of intended publication, with the Court holding that failing to do so does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ruling means Mosley has failed in his campaign to push for tougher privacy laws in the UK in the wake of a 2008 article in the News of the World entitled 'F1 boss has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers'.

Mosley was awarded £60,000 in damages after the court ruled that there were no Nazi connotations to the images published by the paper, with their publication therefore breaching Mosley's right to privacy.

Despite the compensation Mosley brought proceedings in the European Courts under the European Convention on Human Rights alleging the UK had violated Article 8 of the Convention – protecting the right for respect of private and family life – by not notifiying him in advance of their intentions, thus giving him time to seek an injunction.

However, an amendment has been made to the Editor's Code to include a requirement that journalists should normally notify the subject of their articles prior to publication, subject to a "public interest" exception, set to be included in the Editor's Codebook.

The ECHR though concluded there was no violation and therefore no legal requirement for the media to give prior notice, warning of the "chilling effect" this could have on the media.

Collyer Bristow is representing Mosley alongside Blackstone Chambers' Lord Pannick QC.

Mosley has three months to request the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR, which would see a panel of judges consider whether the case deserves further examination. If the referral is refused, today's judgment will become final.

Preiskel & Co head of media David Allen Green commented: "The ruling today does not change very much and it is easy to overestimate the importance of this case. The laws surrounding privacy will still stand and Mosley has still won his case, as shown by the damages previously paid out.

"However, it is disappointing the court did not go one step further and force newspapers to start notifying people before printing stories about their private lives. Superinjunctions are incredibly rare and very misunderstood, and do not mean that a story will necessarily be stopped. I understand that it is likely Mosley will appeal to the Grand Chamber."

Olswang head of judicial review and public law, Dan Tench, added: "The judgment today was absolutely predictable. The main problem was that there appeared to be no proper proposals as to the sanctions that would be put in place for failure to notify, if this rule was imposed on newspapers.

"Obviously you have two options, to impose additional damages or to make it a criminal offence. If you impose additional damages, it is not clear whether this would be any significant deterrent, and if you make it a criminal offence this would compromise journalists' freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. For these reasons I don't think success was ever on the cards."

The ruling comes in a week that has seen further controversy around the use of injunctions by celebrities to protect their privacy. Efforts by a number of Twitter users to use the social media site to thwart injunctions have highlighted the increasing challenges faced by UK courts in enforcing privacy orders in the digital media age.

To download the full judgment from Legal Week Law, click here.