Source: http://blog.lehofer.at/2012/06/egmr-fall-christian-foto-vom.html
Timestamp: 2017-02-25 20:26:34
Document Index: 120257147

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

e-comm: EGMR - "Fall Christian": Foto vom schmerzverzerrten Gesicht des Opfers eines Sorgerechtsstreits für Berichterstattung nicht notwendig
"Es besteht kein Zweifel, dass die Bewahrung des intimsten Lebensbereiches eines Minderjährigen, der Opfer eines Sorgerechtsstreits wurde und nicht selbst die öffentliche Sphäre betreten hat, wegen seiner verwundbaren Stellung besonderen Schutz verdient." Das - hier grob übersetzt - stellt der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in zwei heute veröffentlichten Urteilen (Krone Verlag GmbH gegen Östererich, Appl. no. 27306/07, und Kurier Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei GmbH gegen Österreich [Nr. 2], Appl. no. 1593/06) zum sogenannten "Fall Christian" fest. Es ist demnach nicht notwendig, die Bilder des Minderjährigen abzudrucken, um sein Leiden und seine Verzweiflung zu zeigen und damit die Öffentlichkeit aus iher Apathie zu rütteln und ihre Aufmerksamkeit zu erreichen (Abs. 58 des Kurier-Urteils), oder das schmerzverrte Gesicht des Minderjährigen zu bringen, um die Glaubwürdigkeit der Berichterstattung zu sichern (Abs. 55 des Krone-Urteils). Zum Ausgangsfall
55. The Court further considers that the articles at issue dealt with a matter of public concern, namely the appropriate enforcement of custody decisions and whether and to what extent force may or should be used in this context. Such a matter could, and in the present case did, give rise to a public debate. However, given that neither Christian himself nor his parents were public figures or had previously entered the public sphere, it cannot be considered that the disclosure of his identity was essential for understanding the particulars of the case [...]. In this connection, the Court notes that it was acceptable for the applicant company to report on all relevant details concerning the case of Christian, in particular as regards the problematic attempt to enforce the decision taken in the custody proceedings by the court officers on 26 January 2004, but not to reveal the identity of Christian while publishing the most intimate details about him, or publish a picture of him from which he could be recognised. 56. Moreover, the Court is not persuaded by the applicant company’s argument that the publication of the photograph which showed the pain in Christian’s face was necessary in order to ensure the credibility of the story. In this regard the Court reiterates that the publication of photographs and articles the sole purpose of which is to satisfy the curiosity of a particular readership regarding the details of a public figure’s private life cannot be deemed to contribute to any debate of general interest to society despite the person being known to the public. In such conditions freedom of expression calls for a narrower interpretation [...]. The Court considers that such considerations also apply to persons, like Christian, who are not public figures. 57. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the preservation of the most intimate sphere of life of a juvenile who had become the victim of a custody dispute and had not himself stepped into the public sphere deserved particular protection on account of his or her vulnerable position. Zur Verhältnismäßigkeit des Eingriffs führt der EGMR aus, dass es sich nicht um eine strafrechtliche Sanktion handle, dass der Betrag von € 130.000 aber außergewöhnlich hoch sei. Im Hinblick auf die konkreten Umstände (Anzahl der Artikel, hoher Marktanteil der Krone, Schutzmechanismen gegen überhöhte Entschädigungen) sei dies aber noch verhältnismäßig:
59. In the present case the applicant company reported on the case of Christian in a series of thirteen articles, each time repeating information on his strictly private sphere revealing intimate details of his life, his emotional state and his health, and repeatedly publishing photographs of him. Even though these news items had already become known to the public, at a certain point their frequent repetition was capable of creating a climate of continual harassment inducing in the person concerned a very strong sense of intrusion into their private life or even of persecution [...]. 60. Another element which has to be taken into account is the particularly wide circulation of the applicant company’s newspaper, which rendered the interference more intense. In this connection, the Government submitted, and this was not disputed by the applicant company, that (in 2006) the Kronen Zeitung reached 43.6% of the entire Austrian population, amounting to approximately eight million inhabitants – and up to 60% of the population in some of the Länder – as readers, which, in relative terms, makes it one of the newspapers with the highest circulation in the world. 61. Lastly, the Court has to examine whether in domestic law there existed adequate and effective domestic safeguards against disproportionate awards [...]. In this regard, the Court observes that a maximum amount for compensation in a single case is provided for in section 7(1) of the Media Act, which provides that damages must not exceed EUR 20,000. Moreover, section 6(1) of the Media Act contains clear guidelines for the fixing of the amount of damages, and provides, inter alia, that the compensation must not endanger the economic existence of the media owner. The Court considers that these safeguards are adequate and effective preventing disproportionate awards. The Court therefore concludes that the amount awarded in damages was not disproportionate in the particular circumstances of the case. 62. In sum, the Court finds that in awarding compensation for the interference with Christian’s private life by the applicant company, the respondent State acted within its margin of appreciation in assessing the need to protect his privacy. It is satisfied that the restriction on the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression resulting from the judgments of the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal was supported by reasons that were relevant and sufficient, and was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursed. Der EGMR stellte daher einstimmig keine Verletzung des Art 10 EMRK fest.
Aus meiner Sicht ein wirklicher Grenzfall: Die (vom EGMR nicht wirklich gewürdigte) Kurier-Argumentation, die Bilder seien zum "Wachrütteln der Öffentlichkeit" notwendig gewesen, hat schon etwas. Bei mir hat es dazu geführt, dass ich diese Bilder immer im Hinterkopf habe, wenn über die Durchsetzung von Obsorgeentscheidungen berichtet wird (zB EGMR-Fall Sporer oder jüngst der Dänemark-Fall). Es stimmt auch nicht ganz, dass die Eltern nicht die "public arena" betreten hätten: Gerade der Vater bzw ihm nahestehende Personen hatten die Medien "zu Hilfe" gerufen, ansonsten wären diese wohl nie auf den Fall aufmerksam geworden. Das von der Mutter in Christians Namen angestrengte Medienrechtsverfahren war wohl eine gewisse Retourkutsche dafür. Interessant, ob Christian selbst - heute 17 - noch etwas dazu zu sagen hätte. Bezeichnend wäre es, wenn der damalige Schluss der Debatte stimmen würde: Demnach soll nämlich in der Folge die Mutter jeden weiteren Kontakt zum Vater unterbunden haben - womit wir wieder bei Sporer wären, dessen Folgen derzeit den VfGH beschäftigen (vgl http://www.vfgh.gv.at/cms/vfgh-site/attachments/1/7/1/CH0003/CMS1339142202454/sommersession2012presseinformation.pdf)
Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:00:00 AM