Ex-Formula One boss Max Mosley has launched an appeal against his failed bid to force a change in UK privacy laws.
His lawyers have announced that Mr Mosley will continue his courtroom campaign despite losing a human rights challenge over News of the World revelations about his sex life.
Last month a seven-judge panel of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg threw out his demand for tougher laws forcing newspapers to warn people before exposing their private lives. That could have a "chilling effect" on journalism, the judges warned.
Now, Mr Mosley has taken up the option of applying for an appeal hearing before a 17-judge "Grand Chamber" of the same court - the last legal option left in his high-profile battle for tougher legislation to prevent repeats of what the court acknowledged had been unjustified media intrusion.
Mr Mosley won a case in the UK High Court in 2008 in a ruling declaring that there was no justification for a front-page article and pictures in the News of the World about his meeting with five prostitutes in a London flat. The paper had suggested that the sexual activities had "Nazi overtones" - something dismissed by the court.
Mr Mosley was awarded £60,000 damages but nevertheless pursued the issue to the Human Rights Court to argue that "prior notification" should be compulsory for newspapers, to give their targets time to seek an injunction preventing publication.
Mr Mosley had argued that the media right under UK law to expose private behaviour without telling the "victim" breached his right to a private life, guaranteed by the Human Rights Convention.
But the Human Rights judges in Strasbourg ruled that the right to freedom of expression - also guaranteed in the Convention - would be at risk if "pre-notification" was compulsory.
Mr Mosley's lawyers, Collyer Bristow, said a formal request had been lodged for the case to be heard by the Grand Chamber.
The application to Strasbourg argues that, without an obligation on the media to notify individuals ahead of publication, there is no remedy for what last month's ruling described as "a flagrant and unjustified invasion of (Mr Mosley's) private life".