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 ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• 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, 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, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  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, 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, 16.06.2015 - 64569/09

  Betreiber haftet für Nutzerkommentare

  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, 14.02.2008 - 20893/03

  JULY AND SARL LIBERATION v. FRANCE

  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, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  JANOWSKI v. POLAND

  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).

• 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, 21.09.2010 - 34147/06

  POLANCO TORRES ET MOVILLA POLANCO c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 33677/10

  If one takes Karakó and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain (no. 34147/06, 21 September 2010) as an indication of the direction in which the Court is heading with regard to the right to reputation - which is far from obvious - the questions raised at the beginning of the above citation should be answered as follows: a right to reputation exists, but not in all circumstances.
• EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 32106/08

  DUNGVECKIS v. LITHUANIA

  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.
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 53495/09

  Meinungsfreiheit gilt auch für Werbung
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

• 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, 28.06.2022 - 34872/16

  WIERZBICKI AND WIERZBICKA v. POLAND

  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 Jelsevar and Others v. Slovenia, no. 47318/07, § 32, 11 March 2014).
• EGMR - 23174/15 (anhängig)

  KARPUSHENKO v. RUSSIA

  In so far as the applicant referred to her business reputation, has there been an interference under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Fürst-Pfeifer v. Austria, nos. 33677/10 and 52340/10, §§ 35-42, 17 May 2016), on account of the court decisions in her defamation case? If yes, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?.