Headwind from Europe: The New Position of the German Courts on Personality Rights after the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 527-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corinna Coors
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The U.S

In Germany, as in the U.S., the relationship between protection of privacy and freedom of expression has been subject of many decisions. In the U.S. a right of privacy was famously conjured out of common law precedents by Warren and Brandeis. Over the course of a century, it developed into a right of publicity, which gave celebrities the power to prevent the commercial use of their names, endorsements, images, voices, and other attributes of personality by unauthorized third parties. In defining such a right, much attention has been focused on separating what is commercially unacceptable from what is desirable free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It has also been important to settle the duration of such rights. Publicity rights as a commercial value of a person's identity are therefore well established in the U.S., although state laws vary widely as to the extent of protection. In Germany, due to the constitutional background of the personality right, the balance between public and private interests still operates differently. After the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2004 convicted the German Federal Republic of violating the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights Fundamental Freedoms, the German Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof—BGH) took the opportunity to think over its previous position about image rights. Three judgments were examined by the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht—BVerfG) and one of them was reversed.

scholarly journals Limits of a Judge’s Freedom of Expressing His/Her Own Opinion: The Ukrainian Context and ECtHR Practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 170-180
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Right

This paper examines the degree of permissible interference with a judge’s freedom of expressing his/her own opinion and convictions. A question is raised about the limits of a judge’s freedom of expression and discretion of the state in establishing his/her communicative behaviour, taking into account the established practice of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECtHR, the Court). Understanding these limits is important not only for individual judges but also for society as a whole, as restrictions on freedom of expression may affect the state’s perception of the rule of law. Systematic analysis of the key documents that regulate the issue of freedom of expression of a judge in Ukraine allows us to identify several spheres of imperative regulation of a judge’s behaviour in the context of communicative activity: during the administration of justice (in court procedure); in public speeches, particularly in the media; during the implementation of other activities not prohibited for the judge – literary, scientific, educational; during Internet communication; in everyday life. ECtHR case-law in the context of assessing the limits of a judge’s freedom of expressing one’s opinion develops in two directions. In the first, the judge’s freedom is considered in the context of Art. 10 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter ECHR, the Convention). In the second, the right to freedom of expression is limited to the right to a fair trial of others (in the context of impartiality and independence of a court within the meaning of Art. 6 of the ECHR). In general, the matter of judicial evaluation was the statements of judges concerning cases that were in their proceedings; those criticising judicial reform measures and other administrative actions; those which criticised their colleagues. The results of the analysis allow us to conclude that, despite the different preconditions, different circumstances, and varying implementation reflections, the freedom of a judge to express his/ her opinion is limited by his/her special status as a state servant (in a broad sense). Where the boundary is in a particular case should be determined by considering the specific circumstances. However, national law enforcement authorities must develop their own criteria for assessing the balance of public and private interests in a judge’s communicative behaviour

scholarly journals THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION VS. THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE GEORGIAN LEGISLATION

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamar Avaliani
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
High Standard ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Court ◽  
The U.S

The present paper examines the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to criticism of the Court, and the compliance of the Georgian legislation and the case law with international standards (U.S. and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights). The article deals with the scope of the court’s criticism under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its impact on the Georgian legislation. The paper analyzes the United States model of freedom of expression and compares it with the standards of the European Court of Human Rights. The study found that, similar to the U.S. model, the Georgian model of freedom of expression is based on the primacy of a neutral restriction on freedom of expression, which indicates a high standard of protection of freedom of speech. The Georgian constitutional standard for restricting freedom of expression in order to administer the process of justice smoothly, properly and effectively for a legitimate purpose is influenced by the “three-element” test developed in the Brandenburg case, and shares its essence. According to the Georgian model of freedom of expression, the restriction of freedom of expression for the legitimate aim of ensuring the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, should only be applied to the smooth and proper administration of justice, using the “Clear and Present Danger Test”, involving its high probability. In terms of the court criticism, the Georgian model offers a substantive and content-neutral regulation, and prevents the restriction of the subject of expression. According to the standard of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, expressing an opinion on the activities of a judge is considered a constitutional right and enjoys a high value status. In order to protect the authority of the court, according to the standards of both the International and the Constitutional Court of Georgia, “pushing speech into falling victim to justice” and unjustifiably exercising interference is found inadmissible.

scholarly journals Current caselaw discrepancies in the protection of national symbols and state representatives between the European Court of Human Rights and Spanish courts: a vicious circle

2021 ◽  
pp. 125-145
Author(s):  
Andrés Gascón Cuenca
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Democratic Society ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Vicious Circle ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
General Consensus ◽  
European Court ◽  
National Symbols ◽  
State Representatives

Despite the general consensus about freedom of expression being a basic fundamental right on every democratic society, the debate about its boundaries has never found such a pacific agreement. Thus, the Spanish Penal Code has several articles that punish its abuse that are highly contested, like articles 490.3 and 543 that penalize the offenses directed towards national symbols or State representatives. This being so, this article examines the controversy generated by the application of this articles through the analysis of two judgements issued by the European Court of Human Rights against Spain, and a third one issued by the Spanish Constitutional Court that could follow the same path. This work will be done to describe the clash that exists between the caselaw of these two jurisdictions, in order to critically analyze the approach Spanish courts have to behaviors that criticize national symbols and state representatives.

scholarly journals UKRAINIAN COURTS AND THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2016 ◽  
pp. 68-75
Author(s):  
Victor Muraviov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Efficient Protection ◽  
Independent Functioning ◽  
Positive Effect

The article is focused on the interaction between the Ukrainian courts of general jurisdiction and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the area of the protection of human rights. There is emphasized that their independent functioning does not provide for the efficient protection of individual rights and freedoms and significantly increases the number of the judicial recourses of the Ukrainian citizens to the European Court of Human Rights. Particular attention is paid to the role of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the protection of human rights, which combines the functions of the constitutional control and constitutional supervision. Its activities are focused on the official interpretation on the Constitution of Ukraine. Attention is paid to the list those who may bring the actions before the Constitutional Court, which includes apart from the state bodies the natural and legal persons. The is mentioning of the issues on initiating of proceedings before the Court. Also broadly is analyzed Constitutional Court’ activities concerning the interpretation of the Constitution in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights and other international agreements dealing with the protection of human rights. The article stresses on the contribution of other Ukrainian courts in the affirmation of the constitutional concept of the protection of human rights and freedoms in Ukraine. The majority of resolutions of such highest judicial body in the system of courts of general jurisdiction as the Supreme Court of Ukraine concern the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. As it is emphasized in the article the independent functioning on the Constitutional Court and the courts of general jurisdiction does not provide for the cooperation between both branches of courts. Courts of general jurisdiction feel free as to the appeal to the Constitutional Court. Even when such appeals are directed to Constitutional Court the decisions of the letter are not binding to the courts of general jurisdiction. Special attention is paid to the introduction of the institute of constitutional complaint and its positive effect on the judicial mechanism of the protection of human rights in Ukraine.

scholarly journals Internet and freedom of expression in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 1023-1042
Author(s):  
Ljiljana Mijović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Internet ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
And Control

Internet as a means of communication, whatever the type of information it might be used for, falls within the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. As established in the European Court's case law, freedom of expression constitutes one of the essentials of a democratic society, therefore limitations on that freedom foreseen in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention are to be interpreted strictly. In order to ensure effective protection of one's freedom of expression on the Internet, States bear a positive obligation to create an appropriate regulatory framework, balancing the right to freedom of expression on one and the limitations prescribed in Article 10 § 2, on the other hand. Special attention in doing so is to be paid to the risk of harm posed by content and communications on the Internet to the exercise and enjoyment of other human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention, particularly the right to respect for private life. While it is the fact that the electronic network, serving billions of users worldwide, will never be subject to the same regulations and control, because of the national authorities' margin of appreciation, the European Court established commonly applicable general principles regarding the Internet as a media of exercising right to freedom of expression.

scholarly journals Freedom of expression and reputation protection in the European Court of Human Rights practice.

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 39-44
Author(s):  
Andriy Kuchuk
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Human Rights Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the issue of understanding freedom of expression and reputation protection by the European Court of Human Rights. New opportunities to exercise the right to freedom of expression arise and opportunities to implement the right to freedom of expression as well as the possibilities for defamation increase within a democratic and information society. It is emphasized that within a law-based state guarantees provided to the press are of particular importance, as the media should disseminate information and ideas of public interest, and the public has the right to receive such information and ideas. A clear understanding of the content of the right to freedom of expression and the right to reputation protection is the basis for resolving the issue of finding a balance between them, which designates the relevance of the study. The paper elucidates the results of the European Court of Human Rights decisions analysis under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression). Emphasis is placed on the various features of these rights and the peculiarities of their implementation in different circumstances. It is pointed out that the domestic judicial system actively uses the European Court of Human Rights practice in resolving cases related to reputation protection. Attention is placed on the fact that freedom of expression does not extend to hate speech. The spread of the right to reputation protection as for defamation of family members and relatives is analyzed. Emphasis is placed on the dynamic approach of the European Court of Human Rights towards the interpretation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Even before the beginning of 2000, the European Court of Human Rights noted that the protection of reputation does not fall under the protection of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The study describes the genesis of the positions of the European Court of Human Rights on a person’s reputation protection. It is stated that a person’s right to protection of his or her reputation is covered by Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as part of the right to respect for private life (provided that causing considerable damage to reputation if it affects a person’s private life).

The right to the protection of religious feelings versus freedom of expression in the light of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the European Convention on Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 58-83
Author(s):  
Janusz Roszkiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
A Value ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

This article concerns the right to the protection of religious feelings as a value which justifies a restriction of freedom of expression. The right to the protection of religious feelings can be protected by three methods: civil, penal and administrative. The issue is discussed from the point of view of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the European Convention on Human Rights, with particular emphasis on the case-law of the Polish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

2. European Convention on Human Rights

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter first explains the background and rationale for the formation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), tracing its roots to the Council of Europe that was formed in 1949 and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) established a year later. It then looks at the different kinds of human rights embedded in the ECHR, including the right to life, right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, right to property, and right to free elections. The chapter also provides an overview of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), along with the major changes made to its complaints system and how it interprets the Convention rights. Finally, it considers the ECtHR’s use of proportionality and margin of appreciation doctrines to find the balance between the rights of the individual and the community when deciding upon qualified rights.

scholarly journals The right of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment to parole from serving a sentence or to replace the unserved part of the sentence with a milder one and ensuring it in Ukraine

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-175
Author(s):  
Anatoliy Chernenko ◽  
Anatoliy Shyyan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
Conditional Release ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

The article examines the issues of ensuring the right of convicts to life imprisonment in Ukraine to parole from serving a sentence or replacing the unserved part of the sentence with a milder one. The norms of the Criminal Code, other legislative acts of Ukraine governing this issue, as well as the Regulation on the procedure for pardon approved by decree of the President of Ukraine No. 223/2015 of April 21, 2015 are analyzed. They are compared with international legal acts, in particular, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, which governs the conditional release of life-sentenced prisoners or replaces the unserved part of the sentence with a milder one, as well as several decisions of the European Court of Human Rights regarding such issues. The inconsistency of Ukrainian legislation, the Regulation on the procedure for pardoning international law and the decisions of the ECHR is shown. Particular attention is paid to the decision of the ECHR in the case of “Roosters v. Ukraine” of March 12, 2019, as well as future decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the Supreme Court, which are currently considering this issue. Considering the provisions expressed by the ECHR in this case, it is concluded that the current mechanism for such exemption does not comply with international standards and this entails the need to consolidate the relevant legal norms in Ukrainian legislation. The problematic aspects of the implementation of such a right are analyzed, some suggestions are made for their solution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document