Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FÜRST-PFEIFER v. AUSTRIA

  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FÜRST-PFEIFER v. AUSTRIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• lehofer.at (Kurzanmerkung und ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

  Medien als Wach- oder Jagdhunde? Veröffentlichung eines alten Gutachtens über psychische Probleme einer Gerichtssachverständigen für Psychologie (Fürst-Pfeifer gegen Österreich)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• lehofer.at (Kurzanmerkung und ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

  Medien als Wach- oder Jagdhunde? Veröffentlichung eines alten Gutachtens über psychische Probleme einer Gerichtssachverständigen für Psychologie (Fürst-Pfeifer gegen Österreich)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  FÜRST-PFEIFER v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (17)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  Britische DNA-Datenbanken verstoßen gegen die Europäische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 33677/10

  In previous case-law, the Court has emphasised that information about a person's health is an important element of private life (see, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008).

  Paragraph 43 makes brief reference to the fact that the information in question concerned the applicant's health, which is "an important element of private life" (the Chamber refers to S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008).

  In S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECHR 2008), the Court referred to the importance of the protection of personal data, including as they concern matters of health.

• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 33677/10

  In previous case-law, the Court has emphasised that information about a person's health is an important element of private life (see, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008).

  Paragraph 43 makes brief reference to the fact that the information in question concerned the applicant's health, which is "an important element of private life" (the Chamber refers to S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008).

  In S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECHR 2008), the Court referred to the importance of the protection of personal data, including as they concern matters of health.

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 33677/10

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 106, ECHR-2012).

  In paragraph 38 of the present judgment, the Chamber, referring to Axel Springer AG v. Germany ([GC], no. 39954/08, § 87, 7 February 2012) and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) ([GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 106, ECHR 2012), rightly reiterates that "the outcome of an application should not, in principle, vary according to whether it has been lodged... under Article 10... by the publisher of an offending article or under Article 8... by the person who has been the subject of that article".

  On 7 February 2012 the Grand Chamber of the Court handed down its opinion in Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) ([GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, ECHR 2012).

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 33677/10

  Nonetheless the Court observes that those who act in an official capacity must enjoy public confidence in conditions free of undue perturbation if they are to be successful in performing their tasks and it may therefore prove necessary to protect them from offensive and abusive verbal attacks when on duty (see Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I).

  The Chamber refers (in paragraph 46) to July and SARL Libération v. France (no. 20893/03, § 74, ECHR 2008 (extracts)) and (in paragraph 47) to Janowski v. Poland ([GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I).

• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 20893/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 33677/10

  Nonetheless, civil servants acting in an official capacity may nevertheless be subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than ordinary citizens (see with further references, July and SARL Libération v. France, no. 20893/03, § 74, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).

  The Chamber refers (in paragraph 46) to July and SARL Libération v. France (no. 20893/03, § 74, ECHR 2008 (extracts)) and (in paragraph 47) to Janowski v. Poland ([GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I).

• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 64569/09

  Verlagsportal für Nutzer-Beleidigungen verantwortlich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 33677/10

  In other words, there will usually be a wide margin afforded by the Court if the State is required to strike a balance between competing private interests or competing Convention rights (see, with further references, Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 139, 16 June 2015).

  An individual's reputation, as something which is protected by the Convention, is mentioned twice in the judgment (in paragraphs 36 and 39), but not, however, as an autonomous value under Article 8 (compare, for example, Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 137, ECHR 2015, and the case-law cited therein), but rather within the context of the second paragraph of Article 10. Thus, the reputation of the individual concerned is treated as something for which the media could not care less, unless there is (most likely ex ante) "iron" evidence that an individual's reputation will be unwarrantably damaged by a publication.

• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 33677/10

  The Court reiterates that according to its case-law the right to reputation is an independent right guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention which the State has a positive obligation to protect (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 18, 28 April 2009).

  The Court links back to the arguments raised by the Chamber in Karakó v. Hungary (no. 39311/05, 28 April 2009), basing itself on that judgment's finding (in § 22) that:.

• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 73579/10

  Berichterstattung über das Intimleben eines Regierungschefs

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 33677/10

  It follows that, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant claims a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court has to determine whether the principles inherent to Article 10 were properly applied by the Austrian courts when deciding the applicant's actions (see for many, Ruusunen v. Finland, no. 73579/10, § 43, 14 January 2014; Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 93, 10 November 2015).

  Paradoxically enough, the majority does not state that it sees the Court's role also in determining whether the Austrian courts properly applied the principles inherent to Article 8, although even the cases referred to in paragraph 42 imply this (see Ruusunen v. Finland, no. 73579/10, § 43, 14 January 2014, and Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 93, ECHR 2015).

• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 53495/09

  Meinungsfreiheit gilt auch für Werbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 33677/10

  In two recent cases (Dungveckis v. Lithuania, no. 32106/08, 12 April 2016, and Pinto Coelho v. Portugal (no. 2), no. 48718/11, 22 March 2016), and for a long time before that (Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, ECHR 2004-VI; Ernst August von Hannover v. Germany, no. 53649/09, 19 February 2015; and Bohlen v. Germany, no. 53495/09, 19 February 2015), I have been a staunch supporter of personality rights.
• EuGH, 05.10.1994 - C-404/92

  X / Kommission

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 33677/10

  Article 8 of the Convention protects the confidentiality of medical data as a fundamental part of the intimacy of a human being (see the Court's leading judgments in the cases of Z. v. Finland, 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I, and M. S. v. Sweden, 27 August 1997, Reports, 1997-IV; see also the leading ECJ judgment of 5 October 1994, X. v. Commission, Case C-404/92 P).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 34147/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 36919/02

  ARMONIENE v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 32106/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 33846/07

  Kein unbedingter Anspruch auf Löschung unrichtiger Zeitungsartikel aus …
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 58842/09

  ATV PRIVATFERNSEH-GMBH v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 32104/06

  COJOCARU v. ROMANIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 60798/10

  Namen der Sedlmayr-Mörder bleiben im Netz

  Mit anderen Worten: Der Gerichtshof billigt dem Staat allgemein einem weiten Beurteilungsspielraum zu, wenn er einen Ausgleich zwischen privaten Interessen oder verschiedenen konventionsrechtlich geschützten Rechten herbeizuführen hat (Delfi AS, a.a.O., Rdnr. 139, Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete und Index.hu Zrt ./. Ungarn, Nr. 22947/13, Rdnr. 59, 2. Februar 2016, und Fürst-Pfeifer./. Österreich, Nrn. 33677/10 und 52340/10, Rdnr. 40, 17.
• OLG Köln, 29.05.2018 - 15 U 64/17

  Keine Geldentschädigung für Erbin von Helmut Kohl für Kohl-Protokolle - …

  Bei der notwendigen Gesamtwürdigung ist zudem zu berücksichtigen, dass sich Politiker - wie der Erblasser - in einer Demokratie wissentlich der genauen Prüfung ihrer Handlungen und Verhaltensweisen durch die Öffentlichkeit und auch durch die Presse aussetzen und deswegen Einschränkungen beim Schutz ihres Persönlichkeitsrechts - sei es postmortal - hinzunehmen haben (vgl. allgemein EGMR v. 17.05.2016 - 33677/10 und 52340/10, NJOZ 2017, 1691 Tz. 46 - Fürst-Pfeifer/Österreich; v. 02.02.2016 - 22947/13, NJW 2017, 2091 Tz. 55 - Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete u. Index.hu Zrt/Ungarn; v. 10.11.2015 - 40454/07, NJOZ 2017, 346 Tz. 121 sowie vor allem EGMR v. 10.07.2014 - 48311/10, NJW 2015, 1501 Tz. 54 f., 68 f. - Axel Springer AG/Deutschland Nr. 2 jeweils m.w.N.).
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 55537/10

  HAUPT v. AUSTRIA

  The Court considers that, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant claims a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court has to determine whether the principles inherent to Article 10 were properly applied by the Austrian courts when examining the applicant's actions (see Fürst-Pfeifer v. Austria, nos. 33677/10 and 52340/10, § 42, 17 May 2016; Ruusunen v. Finland, no. 73579/10, § 43, 14 January 2014; and Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés, cited above § 93).

• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 11436/06

  MITYANIN v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  In other words, there will usually be a wide margin of appreciation afforded by the Court if the State is required to strike a balance between competing private interests or competing Convention rights (for a recent statement on the applicable approach, see Fürst-Pfeifer v. Austria, nos. 33677/10 and 52340/10, §§ 40-42, 17 May 2016).
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 1799/07

  [ENG]

  (On this approach, with which we could not disagree more, we refer to our joint dissenting opinion in Fürst-Pfeifer v. Austria (nos. 33677/10 and 52340/10, 17 May 2016)).
• EGMR, 06.11.2025 - 23236/22

  BAENA SALAMANCA v. SPAIN

  Nevertheless, the Court has recognised that in some circumstances civil servants acting in an official capacity may be subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than private individuals (see Chkhartishvili v. Georgia, no. 31349/20, § 56, 11 May 2023; Bild GmbH & Co. KG v. Germany, no. 9602/18, § 33, 31 October 2023; and Fürst-Pfeifer v. Austria, nos. 33677/10 and 52340/10, § 46, 17 May 2016 concerning an expert who was frequently appointed in domestic custody proceedings).
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 22254/14

  ERMÉNYI v. HUNGARY

  (Admittedly, there is also an opposite tendency in the Court's case-law, namely where personality rights, which should be effectively protected by Article 8, happen to be ignored when set against the media's rights under Article 10 - but to enter into these matters would entail discussion of a completely different topic; see my joint dissenting opinions with Judge Wojtyczek in Fürst-Pfeifer v. Austria (nos. 33677/10 and 52340/10, 17 May 2016) and Ziembiński v. Poland (no. 2) (no. 1799/07, 5 July 2016).).
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  MOCKUTÄ- v. LITHUANIA

  The disclosure of medical data by medical institutions to a newspaper, to a prosecutor's office and to a patient's employer, and the collection of a patient's medical data by an institution responsible for monitoring the quality of medical care were also held to have constituted an interference with the right to respect for private life (see Armonienė v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 44, 25 November 2008, also see Fürst-Pfeifer v. Austria, nos. 33677/10 and 52340/10, § 43, 17 May 2016; Avilkina and Others v. Russia, no. 1585/09, § 32, 6 June 2013; Radu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 50073/07, § 27, 15 April 2014; and L.H. v. Latvia, cited above, § 33; respectively).
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 18925/09

  JISHKARIANI v. GEORGIA

  áƒ.áƒ�áƒ.ჯელáƒ�ღáƒ.რულებიáƒ. დáƒ�áƒáƒ”áƒ.ებულებáƒ�ში მáƒ�მჩივნიáƒ. პáƒ�áƒ-იციიáƒ.áƒ� დáƒ� áƒ�ქტივáƒ�ბებიáƒ., მáƒ�თ შáƒ�რიáƒ., პáƒ�ტიმáƒ�რთáƒ� áƒ.áƒ�მედიცინáƒ� შემáƒ�áƒáƒ›áƒ”ბიáƒ., გáƒ�თვáƒ�ლიáƒ.áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ”ბით (იხ. მე-6-10 პáƒ�რáƒ�გრáƒ�ფები áƒ-ემáƒ�თ) áƒ.áƒ�áƒ.áƒ�მáƒ�რთლáƒ� ვერხედáƒ�ვáƒ. მიáƒ-ეáƒ-áƒ. áƒ�რდáƒ�ეთáƒ�ნხმáƒ�áƒ. ერáƒ�ვნული áƒ.áƒ�áƒ.áƒ�მáƒ�რთლáƒ�áƒ. დáƒ�áƒ.კვნებáƒ. მáƒ�მჩივნიáƒ., რáƒ�გáƒ�რც áƒ.áƒ�ჯáƒ�რáƒ� ფიგურიáƒ., áƒ.ტáƒ�ტუáƒ.თáƒ�ნ დáƒ�კáƒ�ვშირებით, რáƒ�მელიც მáƒ�ქმედებდáƒ�, რáƒ�გáƒ�რც áƒ�ფიციáƒ�ლური უფლებáƒ�მáƒ�áƒ.ილებიáƒ. ფáƒ�რგლებში დáƒ�, რáƒ�მ შეáƒ.áƒ�ბáƒ�მიáƒ.áƒ�დ, დáƒ�áƒ.áƒ�შვები კრიტიკიáƒ. ფáƒ�რგლები მიáƒ. მიმáƒ�რთ იყáƒ� უფრáƒ� ფáƒ�რთáƒ�, ვიდრე ჩვეულებრივი მáƒ�ქáƒ�ლáƒ�ქეებიáƒ. მიმáƒ�რთ (იხ. ფურáƒ.თ-პფეიფერი áƒ�ვáƒ.ტრáƒ�ლიიáƒ. áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ (Fürst-Pfeifer v. Austria), NN 33677/10 დáƒ� 52340/10, § 46, 17 მáƒ�იáƒ.ი 2016).
• EGMR, 28.06.2022 - 34872/16

  WIERZBICKI v. POLAND

  Rn. 14 Moreover, where the balancing exercise has been undertaken by the domestic courts in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, the Court would require strong reasons to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts (see Fürst-Pfeifer v. Austria, nos. 33677/10 and 52340/10, § 40, 17 May 2016, and Marta Jelševar and Others v. Slovenia, no. 47318/07, § 32, 11 March 2014).
• EGMR - 72797/11 (anhängig)

  DZEUKOZHEV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR - 23174/15 (anhängig)

  KARPUSHENKO v. RUSSIA