Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BIRIUK v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (victim) Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 23373/03

  The Court has previously held that the notion of "private life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention is a broad concept which includes, inter alia, the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings (see Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, p. 33, § 29).
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 23373/03

  The Court recognises that the imposition of heavy sanctions on press transgressions could have a chilling effect on the exercise of the essential guarantees of journalistic freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 113-114, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 23373/03

  Accordingly, this is an area in which the Contracting Parties enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention, account being taken of the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see Johnston and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, § 55).

 
• EGMR, 17.10.1986 - 9532/81

  REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 23373/03

  Furthermore, in striking this balance, the aims mentioned in the second paragraph of Article 8 may be of a certain relevance (see Rees v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106, § 37).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 23373/03

  In that context the Court emphasises the duty of the press to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest (see, among many authorities, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, pp. 29-30, § 59).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 23373/03

  As to the Government's argument that the present application is an actio popularis, the Court recalls that neither Article 34 nor any other provision of the Convention prevent an individual applicant from raising before the Court a complaint in respect of legislation or a judicial practice allegedly in breach of the Convention provided that he or she brings prima facie evidence of being directly affected by the impugned measure (see, mutatis mutandis, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, §§ 40-41, Series A no. 45; Norris v. Ireland, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, § 30; Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, no. 40825/98, § 90, 31 July 2008).
• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  NORRIS c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 23373/03

  As to the Government's argument that the present application is an actio popularis, the Court recalls that neither Article 34 nor any other provision of the Convention prevent an individual applicant from raising before the Court a complaint in respect of legislation or a judicial practice allegedly in breach of the Convention provided that he or she brings prima facie evidence of being directly affected by the impugned measure (see, mutatis mutandis, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, §§ 40-41, Series A no. 45; Norris v. Ireland, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, § 30; Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, no. 40825/98, § 90, 31 July 2008).
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 23373/03

  From the outset the Court notes that the applicant's complaint cannot be dealt with under Article 1 of the Convention, which is a framework provision that cannot be breached on its own (see Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 112, ECHR 2001-II).

• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 16313/10

  Veröffentlichung mehrerer Fotos der Kinder von Oliver Kahn

  En particulier, la Cour a déjà constaté qu'il existe différentes manières d'assurer le respect de la vie privée, notamment en ce qui concerne les questions de compensation pour dommage moral (Armoniene c. Lituanie, no 36919/02, §§ 46-47, 25 novembre 2008, et Biriuk c. Lituanie, no 23373/03, §§ 45-46, 25 novembre 2008 ; voir aussi, mutatis mutandis, Zavoloka c. Lettonie, no 58447/00, § 40, 7 juillet 2009).
• EGMR, 10.10.2019 - 4782/18

  Österreich verurteilt: Vorwürfe eines KZ-Überlebenden nicht geprüft

  However, such limits must not be such as to deprive the individual of his or her privacy and thereby empty the right of its effective content (see Biriuk v. Lithuania, no. 23373/03, § 45, 25 November 2008, and Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 46, 25 November 2008).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 18269/18

  KRACHUNOVA v. BULGARIA

  In the light of the applicant's social and family background, such a threat to her reputation can hardly be brushed off as innocuous (see, mutatis mutandis, Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 42, 25 November 2008, and Biriuk v. Lithuania, no. 23373/03, § 41, 25 November 2008).

 
• EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 36345/16

  L.B. v. HUNGARY

  α) Le principe de la limitation des finalités (article 5 b) de la Convention sur la protection des données), selon lequel les données à caractère personnel ne peuvent faire l'objet d'un traitement que pour des finalités déterminées et ne sont pas utilisées de manière incompatible avec ces finalités (voir, par exemple, M.S. c. Suède, précité, § 42, Z c. Finlande, précité, § 110, et Biriuk c. Lituanie, no 23373/03, § 43, 25 novembre 2008).
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 20928/05

  PETRENCO v. MOLDOVA

  The present case is therefore manifestly distinguishable from a case such as Biriuk v Lithuania (no. 23373/03, 25 November 2008) which concerned a blatant intrusion into the applicant's private life.
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 70489/17

  ALGIRDAS BUTKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court also finds it plain that the conversation contained no elements related to the applicant's private life, such as questions relating to his health (see Biriuk v. Lithuania, no. 23373/03, § 39, 25 November 2008) or sexual life (see Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, no. 41288/15, § 109, 14 January 2020), or similar matters, except for the question of reputation, which the Court will revert to below.
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 24867/13

  M.K. v. UKRAINE

  [4] Z v. Finland, 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997, § 96; Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, ECHR 2011, § 64; Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, 25 November 2008, § 40; Biriuk v. Lithuania, no. 23373/03, 25 November 2008, § 39; I. v. Finland, no. 20511/03, 17 July 2008, § 38; C.C. v. Spain, no. 1425/06, 6 October 2009, § 33; P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, 26 May 2020, §§ 5-6, 26.
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  MOCKUTE v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has also held that information about a person's sexual life (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 41, Series A no. 45; Biriuk v. Lithuania, no. 23373/03, § 34, 25 November 2008; Ion Cârstea v. Romania, no. 20531/06, § 33, 28 October 2014; Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 191, ECHR 2016) as well as moral integrity (see Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 83, ECHR 2015 (extracts)) falls under Article 8 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  MITKUS v. LATVIA

  The Court has previously held that the notion of "private life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention is a broad concept which encompasses, inter alia, personal information relating to a patient (see I. v. Finland, no. 20511/03, § 35, 17 July 2008; Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 35, 25 November 2008; and Biriuk v. Lithuania, no. 23373/03, § 34, 25 November 2008) as well as a person's name and photograph (see Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, §§ 50 and 53, ECHR 2004-VI).