Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KARAKO v. HUNGARY

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 8 (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (30)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 21.02.2002 - 42409/98

  SCHÜSSEL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  However, the Court said at § 50 of that judgment that the concept of private life "extends to aspects relating to personal identity, such as a person's name (see Burghartz v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B, p. 28, § 24), or a person's picture (see Schüssel v. Austria (dec.), no. 42409/98, 21 February 2002)".

  In § 34 of the Pfeifer judgment, the Court found that the publication of a person's photograph fell within the scope of his or her private life even where the person concerned was a public figure (see Schüssel v. Austria (dec.), no. 42409/98, 21 February 2002, and Von Hannover, cited above, § 53).

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  In this respect, the Court recalls that, where several remedies are available, the applicant is not required to pursue more than one (Granger v. the United Kingdom (no. decision of 9 May 1988) and it is normally that individual's choice as to which (see mutatis mutandis, Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, decision of 8 February 2000; Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 23, Series A no. 32).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 64772/01

  LEEMPOEL AND S.A. ED. CINE REVUE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  Ciné Revue v. Belgium (no. 64772/01, § 67, 9 November 2006).

 
• EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 58729/00

  ABEBERRY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  This approach was followed in Abeberry v. France ((dec.), no. 58729/00, 21 September 2004) and Leempoel & S.A. ED.
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 16213/90

  BURGHARTZ c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  However, the Court said at § 50 of that judgment that the concept of private life "extends to aspects relating to personal identity, such as a person's name (see Burghartz v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B, p. 28, § 24), or a person's picture (see Schüssel v. Austria (dec.), no. 42409/98, 21 February 2002)".
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 4591/04

  GUNNARSSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  I agree that the right to the protection of a person's reputation and honour, as such, was left open in Gunnarsson v. Iceland ((dec.), no. 4591/04, 20 October 2005).

• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 6884/11

  Polizeigewalt bei G8 in Genua 2001: Italien verurteilt

  La Cour rappelle que, lorsqu'une voie de recours a été utilisée, l'usage d'une autre voie dont le but est pratiquement le même n'est pas exigé (Kozacioglu, précité, §§ 40-43, Karakó c. Hongrie, no 39311/05, § 14, 28 avril 2009, et Jasinskis c. Lettonie, no 45744/08, §§ 50-55, 21 décembre 2010).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 17.06.2010 - C-92/09

  Volker und Markus Schecke - Schutz natürlicher Personen bei der Verarbeitung …

  41 - Vgl. Urteile Von Hannover/Deutschland vom 24. Juni 2004 (Reports of Judgements and Decisions 2004-VI, Nr. 59320/00, § 50 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung) sowie Karakó/Ungarn vom 28. April 2009 (Nr. 39311/05, § 21).
• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  It has previously held that where several remedies are available, the applicant is not required to pursue more than one and it is normally for an applicant to make a choice as to which of the available remedies to pursue (see Koprivnikar v. Slovenia, no. 67503/13, § 35, 24 January 2017; Szkórits v. Hungary, no. 58171/09, § 23, 16 September 2014; Abdi v. the United Kingdom, no. 27770/08, § 50, 9 April 2013; and Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009).

 
• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 3877/14

  TAMIZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Moreover, while the Government accepted that comments A and D were potentially capable of reaching the high threshold identified by the Court before a reputational attack could fall within the scope of Article 8 (that is, they were of such a seriously offensive nature that their publication had a direct effect on the applicant's private life - see Karako v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, 28 July 2009 and A v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009), they considered it "questionable" whether the matters alleged by comment B reached that threshold.

  However, the notion of "respect" in Article 8 is not clear-cut, and can normally be secured by a number of possible methods (see Mosley, cited above, § 107 and Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 19, 28 April 2009).

• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 34147/06

  POLANCO TORRES ET MOVILLA POLANCO c. ESPAGNE

  Pour que l'article 8 entre en jeu, la publication pouvant ternir la réputation d'une personne doit constituer une atteinte à sa vie privée d'une gravité telle que son intégrité personnelle soit compromise (Karakó c. Hongrie, no 39311/05, § 23, 28 avril 2009).
• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19

  DOMENECH ARADILLA AND RODRÍGUEZ GONZÁLEZ v. SPAIN

  Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 61. The Court has repeatedly stated that when more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (see Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III) and can select that which is most appropriate in his or her case (see Fabris and Parziale v. Italy, no. 41603/13, §§ 49-59, 19 March 2020; O'Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 110-11, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 176, 25 June 2019).
• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 24827/14

  FU QUAN, S.R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Court also reiterates that if more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (see Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V (extracts); Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 21768/12

  PETRO CARBO CHEM S.E. c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir conclu que le droit à la réputation est un droit protégé par l'article 8 de la Convention et que les États ont l'obligation positive d'assurer sa protection (Karakó c. Hongrie, no 39311/05, § 18, 28 avril 2009).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 67503/13

  KOPRIVNIKAR v. SLOVENIA

  Where several remedies are available, the applicant is not required to pursue more than one and it is normally that individual's choice as to which (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  MITKUS v. LATVIA

  In particular in cases concerning newspaper publications, the Court has previously held that the protection of private life has to be balanced, among other things, against the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 26, 28 April 2009; Armoniene, cited above, § 39; and Biriuk, cited above, § 38).
• EGMR, 18.05.2017 - 25322/12

  PETRIE c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.11.2013 - 16882/03

  PUTISTIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14

  PROJECT-TRADE D.O.O. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 52484/18

  STAVROPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 26.01.2023 - 22386/19

  VALVERDE DIGON v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 4762/18

  PAPAGEORGIOU AND OTHERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09

  RUMMI v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 4479/03

  MIKOLAJOVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 26111/15

  MAS GAVARRÓ c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 27903/15

  ZUSTOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 10781/10

  MISICK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 74729/17

  AYUSO TORRES v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 621/14

  L.F. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 15355/14

  KRYSZTOFIAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 72996/16

  MIRENIC-HUZJAK AND JERKOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 45630/06

  STEPNIAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 10265/04

  MOCUTA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 72092/12

  MAZUKNA v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08

  ROBERTS AND ROBERTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 64367/14

  TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED AND KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM