Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GUNNARSSON v. ICELAND

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14+6, Art. 14, Art. 14+8 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 03.02.2000 - 29493/95

  ASLAN v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 4591/04

  Meanwhile, to date, in no case brought under Article 8 of the Convention has the Court ruled that this provision embodies a right to protection of reputation and honour as such, albeit that these are interests that may be taken into account in the determination of a complaint about a State's failure to ensure "the right to respect for... private... life" (see, for example, Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-...; Mustafa Gürsel Aslan v. Malta, (dec.) no. 29493/95, 3 February 2000; and Michael Marlow v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 42015/98, 5 December 2000; Rotaru v. Romania [G.C.], no. 28341/95, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 17101/01, and judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp.
• EGMR, 05.12.2000 - 42015/98

  MARLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 4591/04

  Meanwhile, to date, in no case brought under Article 8 of the Convention has the Court ruled that this provision embodies a right to protection of reputation and honour as such, albeit that these are interests that may be taken into account in the determination of a complaint about a State's failure to ensure "the right to respect for... private... life" (see, for example, Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-...; Mustafa Gürsel Aslan v. Malta, (dec.) no. 29493/95, 3 February 2000; and Michael Marlow v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 42015/98, 5 December 2000; Rotaru v. Romania [G.C.], no. 28341/95, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 17101/01, and judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp.
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 4591/04

  It covers the physical and psychological or moral integrity of a person (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, p. 11, § 22; Raninen v. Finland, judgment of 16 December 1997, Reports of judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII, § 63) and can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual's physical and social identity (see Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 53, ECHR 2002-I; for a more detailed summary of the case-law, see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III, § 61).

 
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 34209/96

  S.N. v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 4591/04

  The task of the Court is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see, for instance, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, § 34; S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 44, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 4591/04

  Meanwhile, to date, in no case brought under Article 8 of the Convention has the Court ruled that this provision embodies a right to protection of reputation and honour as such, albeit that these are interests that may be taken into account in the determination of a complaint about a State's failure to ensure "the right to respect for... private... life" (see, for example, Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-...; Mustafa Gürsel Aslan v. Malta, (dec.) no. 29493/95, 3 February 2000; and Michael Marlow v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 42015/98, 5 December 2000; Rotaru v. Romania [G.C.], no. 28341/95, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 17101/01, and judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp.
• EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 58729/00

  ABEBERRY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 4591/04

  Meanwhile, in the Chauvy and Others v. France (no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-...), which concerned complaints brought under Article 10 of the Convention, the Court affirmed that "in the exercise of its European supervisory duties, [it] must verify whether the authorities struck a fair balance when protecting two values guaranteed by the Convention which may come into conflict with each other in this type of case, namely, on the one hand, freedom of expression protected by Article 10 and, on the other, the right of the persons attacked by the book to protect their reputation, a right which is protected by Article 8 of the Convention as part of the right to respect for private life" (see also Abeberry v. France (dec.) no. 58729/00, 21 September 2004).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 4591/04

  The task of the Court is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see, for instance, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, § 34; S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 44, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 4591/04

  Meanwhile, to date, in no case brought under Article 8 of the Convention has the Court ruled that this provision embodies a right to protection of reputation and honour as such, albeit that these are interests that may be taken into account in the determination of a complaint about a State's failure to ensure "the right to respect for... private... life" (see, for example, Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-...; Mustafa Gürsel Aslan v. Malta, (dec.) no. 29493/95, 3 February 2000; and Michael Marlow v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 42015/98, 5 December 2000; Rotaru v. Romania [G.C.], no. 28341/95, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 17101/01, and judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp.

• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 12556/03

  PFEIFER v. AUSTRIA

  Dans White c. Suède (no 42435/02, §§ 19 et 30, 19 septembre 2006), qui concernait un grief tiré de l'article 8, il a été considéré que le droit d'une personne à la protection de sa réputation contre des déclarations selon elle diffamatoires parues dans la presse relevait de la « vie privée'(voir également, mutatis mutandis, Minelli c. Suisse (déc.), no 14991/02, 14 juin 2005, dans laquelle il a été jugé qu'un grief relatif au manquement allégué à protéger une personne contre un article de journal critique relevait de la « vie privée'telle que protégée par l'article 8 ; en revanche, la question de savoir si cette disposition consacrait en soi un droit à la protection de la réputation et de l'honneur n'a pas été tranchée dans Gunnarsson c. Islande (déc.), no 4591/04, 20 octobre 2005).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  KARAKO v. HUNGARY

  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, 13.01.2009 - 37048/04

  GIORGI NIKOLAISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Consequently, gratuitous damage was done to the applicant's reputation, which forms part of his social identity and psychological integrity and thus falls within the scope of his private life as understood by Article 8 of the Convention (see Pfeifer, cited above, §§ 35 and 46-49; Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI; Gunnarsson v. Iceland (dec.), no. 4591/04, 20 October 2004).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 78060/01

  PETRINA c. ROUMANIE

  Dans une autre affaire, la question de la protection du droit au respect de réputation par l'article 8 de la Convention a été laissé ouverte (voir Gunnarsson c. Islande, (déc.), no 4591/04, 20 octobre 2005).
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  ALEKSEY PETROV v. BULGARIA

  It left the point open in Gunnarsson v. Iceland ((dec.), no 4591/04, 20 October 2005), but later, in White v. Sweden, a case brought under Article 8, found that the publication of defamatory statements relating to the applicant fell within the scope of his "private life" within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 and that the applicant's reputation was a value guaranteed by that provision (see White v. Sweden, no. 42435/02, §§ 19 and 26, 19 September 2006).