The first part of this post considered the question of whether Art 8 of the Convention protects corporate reputation and concluded that the Court’s case law does not provide any good justification for this. Read the rest of this entry »
Do Companies have a right to reputation under the European Convention on Human Rights, Part 2 – David Acheson
21 06 2018Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Article 8, David Acheson, Right to Reputation
Categories : Human Rights, Libel
Do Companies have a right to reputation under the European Convention on Human Rights, Part 1 – David Acheson
19 06 2018
In contrast to the frequent discussion of the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence establishing that individual reputation falls within the scope of the Article 8 right to ‘private and family life’, the possibility that corporations could claim a Convention right to reputation – under either Art 8 or Article 1 of Protocol 1 (‘A1P1’), the right to property – has not attracted a great deal of attention from commentators. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: Article 8, David Acheson, Reputation
Categories : Human Rights, Libel
Case Law, Strasbourg: Bogomolova v. Russia, Publication of picture of 3 year old “orphan” violated Article 8 – Ingrida Milkaite
25 07 2017
The case of Bogomolova v. Russia concerns the use of an unauthorised photograph of a minor’s face on the front page of a booklet promoting adoption and help for orphans. It proves that the publication of pictures of children without parental consent may have a significant social impact on the family and may violate Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), protecting the right to private and family life. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Article 8, GDPR, Ingrida Milkaite, Strasbourg Observers
Categories : Human Rights, Legal, Privacy
Case Comment, Strasbourg: Fürst-Pfeifer v Austria: “A one-sided, unbalanced and fundamentally unjust judgment”? – Stijn Smet
22 06 2016
In Fürst-Pfeifer v Austria, the majority of the Fourth Section of the ECtHR ruled that the applicant’s right to private life was outweighed by the freedom of expression of an online publication and offline newspaper. In one of the fiercest and most poignant dissenting opinions I have read to date, Judges Wojtyczek and Kūris label the majority judgment as “a one-sided, unbalanced and … fundamentally unjust judgment” that “panders to prejudice” against persons, like the applicant, “with a history of mental-health problems”. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Article 8, Stijn Smet, Strasbourg Observers
Categories : Human Rights, Privacy
Case Law, Strasbourg: Sousa Goucha v. Portugal, Failure to prosecute homophobic “joke” not a breach of Article 8 – Hugh Tomlinson QC
3 04 2016
In the case of Sousa Goucha v Portugal ([2016] ECHR 284) the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights held that the dismissal of a domestic defamation action by a gay television presenter was not a breach of his Article 8 right to reputation or of the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14. The Court deferred to the reasoning of the domestic court that a “joke” suggesting that the applicant was female was not defamatory. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Article 8, Hugh Tomlinson QC, Right to Reputation
Categories : Freedom of expression, Human Rights, Privacy
Case Law, Strasbourg: Kahn v Germany, Article 8 not violated by repeated publications of photographs of footballer’s children – Calypso Blaj
24 03 2016
In the case of Kahn v Germany ([2016] ECHR 276), the Court of Human Rights, Fifth Section, held that the repeated publication of photographs by two German magazines (Neue Woche and Viel Spass) of a sportsman’s children despite a court order banning such conduct, did not constitute a violation of the applicants’ Article 8 rights. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Article 8, Calypso Blaj, Positive Obligations
Categories : Human Rights, Privacy
Case Law, Strasbourg: Ärztekammer für Wien and Dorner v Austria, Injunctions prohibiting attack on company’s reputation did not violate Article 10 – Hugh Tomlinson QC
23 02 2016
In the case of Ärztekammer für Wien and Dorner v Austria ([2016] ECHR 179) the Fourth Section of the Court of Human Rights held that an injunction prohibiting a doctors’ leader from criticising a company which provided private health care was not an unjustified interference with his Article 10 rights. Despite the public interest in the subject matter, the protection of the commercial reputation of the company justified the grant of interim and final injunctions. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: Article 8, Court of Human Rights, Hugh Tomlinson QC, Right to Reputation
Categories : Caselaw, Freedom of expression, Human Rights
