PFEIFER v. AUSTRIA - 12556/03 [2007] ECHR 935 (15 November 2007)

PFEIFER v. AUSTRIA - 12556/03 [2007] ECHR 935 (15 November 2007)

The Court found that the impugned statements established a causal link between the applicant's actions and P.'s suicide, amounting to factual allegations unsupported by evidence. The statements overstepped acceptable limits of criticism, lacked sufficient factual basis, and accused the applicant of acts tantamount...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] ECHR 935
Parties
Applicant: Karl Pfeifer; Respondent: Republic of Austria
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
15 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Final Judgment of European Court of Human Rights
Outcome
Violation of Article 8 ECHR found; application admissible.
Legal Topics
Protection of Reputation, Freedom of Expression, Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR, Positive State Obligations
Human Rights Defamation Media Law Protection of Reputation Freedom of Expression Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR Positive State Obligations

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karl Pfeifer

Applicant

Republic of Austria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Final Judgment of European Court of Human Rights

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Austrian courts failed to protect applicant's reputation against defamatory allegations in breach of Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the impugned statements constituted excessive criticism beyond permissible limits under Article 10 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the impugned statements established a causal link between the applicant's actions and P.'s suicide, amounting to factual allegations unsupported by evidence. The statements overstepped acceptable limits of criticism, lacked sufficient factual basis, and accused the applicant of acts tantamount to criminal behaviour. The domestic courts failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant's right to reputation and the other party's freedom of expression, resulting in a violation of Article 8 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 8 ECHR found; application admissible.

Orders

  • Respondent State to pay applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
  • Respondent State to pay applicant EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses.