EHRM: Artikel over gerechtspsychologe met eigen psychologische problemen is geen inbreuk artikel 8

EHRM 17 mei 2016, IEF ; IEFbe ; application nr. 33677/10 and 52340/10 (Fürst-Pfeiffer tegen Oostenrijk)
Mediarecht. Gerechtelijk psychologie Fürst-Pfeiffer maakt bezwaar tegen artikel waarin wordt verteld over haar verleden met eigen psychologische problemen zoals stemmingswisselingen en paniekaanvallen. De inhoud van het artikel was een herhaling van beschikbare informatie die ze niet heeft tegengesproken. Het EHRM oordeelt (met 4 tegen 3 en concurring en dissenting opinions) dat er geen inbreuk was op artikel 8 (recht op respect voor privé en familieleven).

Persbericht: The applicant, Gabriele Fürst-Pfeifer, is an Austrian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Mödling (Austria). The case concerned her complaint that the Austrian courts had failed to protect her reputation against defamatory allegations made in a newspaper article.

Ms Fürst-Pfeifer is a psychiatrist and has been registered since 2000 as a psychological expert for court proceedings, in particular in custody and contact-rights-related cases. In December 2008 an article about her was published on a regional news website run by a private media company based in St. Pölten and in a printed weekly newspaper, distributed for free to every household of the district, which was published by another private media company based in Innsbruck. Part of the article’s headline read: “Court expert for custody proceedings a case for therapy”. The article stated in particular that Ms Fürst-Pfeifer suffered from psychological problems such as mood swings and panic attacks but had been working as a court-appointed expert for many years. The article then referred to a psychological expert report about her which had originally been commissioned in 1993 and which had been made public in the context of proceedings she had brought before the civil courts.

In January 2009 Ms Fürst-Pfeifer lodged an action with the St. Pölten Regional Court against the company which had published the online article, seeking damages for violation of her private life and the fact that she had been compromised publicly. In April 2009 the court allowed her action, ordering the publisher to pay damages and publish the operative part of the judgment. However, the appeal court set the judgment aside in November 2009, dismissing her action. The court confirmed that the passages about her mental state in the article affected her private life. However, the content of the article was true, as it only repeated information that had not been disputed by her. Furthermore, the article was directly linked to her public function as a court-appointed expert.

In parallel Ms Fürst-Pfeifer also lodged an action with the Innsbruck Regional Court against the company which had published the article in the printed newspaper, seeking damages. The Innsbruck Regional Court granted her action, but the appeal court, in February 2010, set the judgment aside and dismissed her action.

Ms Fürst-Pfeifer complained that the Austrian courts had failed to protect her rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mediareport