Source: http://blog.lehofer.at/2012/02/egmr-groe-kammer-darsteller-des.html
Timestamp: 2016-12-03 13:36:39
Document Index: 185993769

Matched Legal Cases: ['EGMR', 'Art 10', 'EGMR', 'Art 8', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR']

Die Ausgangslage war hier allerdings umgekehrt, denn die nationalen Gerichte hatten der Axel Springer AG die Veröffentlichung von (mit Fotos des Betroffenen illustrierten) Berichten in der Bild-Zeitung über die Festnahme und spätere Verurteilung eines TV-Schauspielers wegen Kokainbesitz untersagt, sodass sich in diesem Fall der Medieninhaber vor dem EGMR wegen eines Eingriffs in das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung nach Art 10 EMRK beschwerte. An sich, so hält der EGMR auch in diesem Urteil (Absatz 87) fest, sollte der Maßstab derselbe sein, egal ob der Fall nach Artikel 10 - durch den Medieninhaber - oder nach Art 8 - durch die von der Berichterstattung betroffene Person - vor den Gerichtshof gebracht wird. "In cases such as the present one the Court considers that the outcome of the application should not, in principle, vary according to whether it has been lodged with the Court under Article 10 of the Convention by the publisher who has published the offending article or under Article 8 of the Convention by the person who was the subject of that article. Indeed, as a matter of principle these rights deserve equal respect [...]. Accordingly, the margin of appreciation should in principle be the same in both cases." (Im heutigen "Caroline Nr. 2"-Urteil findet sich in Absatz 106 weitgehend die selbe Formulierung, allerdings heißt es dort "in theory"[!] statt "in principle").
Zum Beitrag zu einer Debatte von allgemeinem Interesse: "The Court notes that the articles in question concern the arrest and conviction of the actor X, that is, public judicial facts that may be considered to present a degree of general interest. The public do, in principle, have an interest in being informed – and in being able to inform themselves – about criminal proceedings, whilst strictly observing the presumption of innocence [...]" Zur Bekanntheit des Betroffenen: Besonders bemerkenswert ist meines Erachtens die vom EGMR vorgenommene Umwertung der Bekanntheit des Schauspielers - hier setzt der EGMR seine Beurteilung an die Stelle jener der nationalen Gerichte und legitimiert dies vor allem auch durch die uneinheitliche Beurteilung der nationalen Gerichte (Hervorhebung hinzugefügt): "The Court notes the substantially different conclusions reached by the national courts in assessing how well known X was. [...] The Court considers that it is, in principle, primarily for the domestic courts to assess how well known a person is, especially where that person is mainly known at national level. It notes in the present case that at the material time X was the main actor in a very popular detective series, in which he played the main character, Superintendent Y. The actor’s popularity was mainly due to that television series, of which, when the first article appeared, 103 episodes had been broadcast, the last 54 of which had starred X in the role of Superintendent Y. Accordingly, he was not, as the Regional Court appeared to suggest, a minor actor whose renown, despite a large number of appearances in films (more than 200 [...]), remained limited. It should also be noted in that connection that the Court of Appeal referred not only to the existence of X’s fan clubs, but also to the fact that his admirers could have been encouraged to imitate him by taking drugs, if the offence had not been committed out of public view [...]
Der EGMR hält fest, dass der Betroffene Details aus seinem Privatleben in früheren Interviews preisgegeben und damit aktiv das Rampenlicht gesucht hatte; seine berechtigte Erwartung, dass sein Privatleben wirksam geschützt sei, sei daher herabgesetzt. Methode der Informationsbeschaffung und Richtigkeit der Information:
Schwere der Sanktionen:
"Regarding, lastly, the severity of the sanctions imposed on the applicant company, the Court considers that, although these were lenient, they were capable of having a chilling effect on the applicant company. In any event, they were not justified in the light of the factors set out above."