Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PUTISTIN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Putistin v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2013 - 16882/03

  40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 98 and 99, ECHR 2012, 7 February 2012).

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 105, ECHR 2012).

• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2013 - 16882/03

  The relevant domestic law on defamation and judicial practice on that issue can be found in the case of Melnychuk v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; see also Ukrainian Media Group v. Ukraine (no. 72713/01, §§ 23-32, 29 March 2005) and Gazeta Ukraina-Tsentr v. Ukraine (no. 16695/04, §§ 18-20, 15 July 2010)).

  However, it is not the task of the Court to act as a court of appeal or, as is sometimes stated, as a court of fourth instance, in respect of the decisions taken by domestic courts (see Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).

• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06

  A. v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2013 - 16882/03

  It further notes that a person's reputation forms part of his or her personal identity and psychological integrity and, therefore, also falls within the scope of his or her "private life" (see Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007; A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009; see, however, also Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, §§ 23, 28 April 2009, where a "clear distinction between personal integrity and reputation" is made).

 
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 17320/10

  JOHN ANTHONY MIZZI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2013 - 16882/03

  The question of whether an action is brought by the defamed person himself or by his heir may also be relevant for assessing the proportionality of an interference (see, in a different context, John Anthony Mizzi v. Malta, no. 17320/10, § 39, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 72713/01

  UKRAINIAN MEDIA GROUP v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2013 - 16882/03

  The relevant domestic law on defamation and judicial practice on that issue can be found in the case of Melnychuk v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; see also Ukrainian Media Group v. Ukraine (no. 72713/01, §§ 23-32, 29 March 2005) and Gazeta Ukraina-Tsentr v. Ukraine (no. 16695/04, §§ 18-20, 15 July 2010)).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  KARAKO v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2013 - 16882/03

  It further notes that a person's reputation forms part of his or her personal identity and psychological integrity and, therefore, also falls within the scope of his or her "private life" (see Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007; A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009; see, however, also Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, §§ 23, 28 April 2009, where a "clear distinction between personal integrity and reputation" is made).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 16213/90

  BURGHARTZ c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2013 - 16882/03

  The Court recalls that the notion of "private life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention is a broad concept which includes, inter alia, elements relating to a person's identity, such as a person's name (see Burghartz v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B, p. 28, § 24), and a person's physical and psychological integrity (see Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 50, ECHR 2004-VI).

• EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 44164/14

  Pharma-Erbe siegt vor EGMR: LG Dresden hat Recht auf faires Verfahren verletzt

  [2] Putistin./. Ukraine, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 16882/03, Rdnr. 33, 21.
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 55495/08

  GENNER v. AUSTRIA

  Dealing appropriately with the dead out of respect for the feelings of the deceased's relatives falls within the scope of Article 8 (see with further references Hadri-Vionnet v. Switzerland, no. 55525/00, § 51, 14 February 2008, Editions Plon v. France, cited above § 46 and Putistin v. Ukraine, no. 16882/03, § 33, 21 November 2013).
• EGMR, 28.06.2022 - 34872/16

  WIERZBICKI AND WIERZBICKA v. POLAND

  On the other hand, the above-mentioned elements made it possible for people who already knew the applicants or those who lived in their local community to identify them and to associate them with the information provided in the programme to the effect that they were real-estate "cheats" and had mental-health issues (see paragraph 8 above; see also, mutatis mutandis, Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, § 62 in fine, ECHR 2003-I; A. v. Norway, cited above, § 70; and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação v. Portugal, no. 29856/13, § 67, 27 July 2021; compare Putistin v. Ukraine, no. 16882/03, § 38, 21 November 2013).

 
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 35582/15

  I.V.T. v. ROMANIA

  Referring to Putistin v. Ukraine (no. 16882/03, 21 November 2013), the Government contended, as regards the protection of an individual's reputation, that there must also be a sufficient link between the applicant and the alleged attack on reputation.
• EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 34159/17

  M.L. v. SLOVAKIA

  Admissibility 23. It is clear from the Court's case-law (see Hadri-Vionnet v. Switzerland, no. 55525/00, § 51, 14 February 2008, with further references; Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 46, ECHR 2004-IV; and Putistin v. Ukraine, no. 16882/03, § 33, 21 November 2013), and the Government accepted, that dealing appropriately with the dead out of respect for the feelings of the deceased's relatives falls within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 23591/10

  H.K. c. TURQUIE

  Pour ce qui est de l'exception relative à la qualité de victime de la requérante, la Cour rappelle avoir déjà jugé que la réputation d'un membre décédé de la famille d'une personne peut, dans certaines circonstances, avoir une incidence sur la vie privée et l'identité de cette personne et tomber ainsi sous le coup de l'article 8 de la Convention (voir, par exemple, Putistin c. Ukraine, no 16882/03, § 33, 21 novembre 2013).