Dating sites axel germany

(b) The notoriety of the person concerned and the subject matter of the report A distinction has to be made between private individuals and persons acting in a public context, as political or public figures.

Accordingly, whilst a private individual unknown to the public may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life, the same is not true of public figures.

In exercising its supervisory function, the Court’s task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on.

In relation to the second article, the Hamburg Court of Appeal upheld the Hamburg Regional Court’s injunction in September 2006 on essentially the same grounds as those given in relation to the first article.

The report had focused more on X’s person than on the offence, which would probably never have been reported on in the press if it had been committed by a person unknown to the public.

The court held that in the present case, the right to protection of X’s personality rights under Art 823(1) of the German Civil Code prevailed over the public’s interest in being informed, even if the truth of the facts related by the daily had not been disputed.

Not only does the press have the duty to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest – including court proceedings – the public also has a right to receive them.

(b) The Court reiterated that the right to protection of reputation is a right which is protected by Article 8 as part of the right to respect for private life.

Leave a Reply