...
首页> 外文期刊>International journal of constitutional law >Council of Europe: Von Hannover v. Germany
【24h】

Council of Europe: Von Hannover v. Germany

机译:欧洲委员会:来自汉诺威诉德国

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Few decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECtHR) have received as much media attention as the judgment in the case under review, in which the princess of Monaco, Caroline von Hannover, defended her right to privacy against intrusions by paparazzi and the tabloid press. The Third Section of the Court held unanimously that Germany had violated the applicant's right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter ECHR), when its courts, including the Federal Constitutional Court, denied her damages for the publication of pictures showing her shopping, in a restaurant courtyard, and at a private beach club. In weighing the right to privacy with the freedom of the press (articles 8 and 10 of the convention, respectively), the seven judges found that there was no public interest in knowing facts of an essentially private nature that could override the applicant's privacy right. Despite heavy lobbying by media corporations, the German government decided against requesting a referral of the case to the Grand Chamber for review under article 43 of the convention. The German Federal Constitutional Court subsequently hinted that it does not consider itself obliged to bring its own case law fully in line with this judgment.
机译:欧洲人权法院(以下简称ECtHR)的判决很少受到媒体关注,而该案的判决也受到了摩纳哥公主卡罗琳·冯·汉诺威(Caroline von Hannover)公主的捍卫,以保护她的隐私权免遭狗仔队和摩纳哥侵扰。小报新闻。法院第三部分一致认为,德国违反了《欧洲人权公约》(以下称《欧洲人权公约》)的申请人的隐私权,当时其法院,包括联邦宪法法院在内,均否认其为出版其购物图片而受到损害的赔偿。 ,餐厅庭院和私人海滩俱乐部。七位法官在用新闻自由权衡量隐私权时(分别是《公约》第8条和第10条),发现了解可能凌驾于申请人的隐私权的本质上私人的事实并没有公共利益。尽管媒体公司大力游说,德国政府还是决定不要求将案件转交大会议堂,以根据《公约》第43条进行审查。德国联邦宪法法院随后暗示,它认为自己没有义务使自己的判例法完全符合该判决。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号