Public figure

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Public figure ( english figure public , French personne publique ) is a legal concept in Europe , Swiss and US law for particularly well-known personalities. The term influences the right to privacy , the admissibility of statements in reporting and the right to one's own picture . The term and content of the concept vary depending on the legal system .

European Convention on Human Rights

The term public figure is used in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) when interpreting Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - right to respect for private and family life . The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe defined public figures in paragraph 7 of its resolution No. 1165 (1998) as “persons who exercise official functions and / or draw on public resources and generally all those who play a role in public life, whether in politics, business, art, society, sport or in other areas ”.

In a judgment of February 7, 2012, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) emphasized that, depending on the circumstances of the individual case, there could be a public interest in information in sports topics or performing artists, but not in the case of alleged marital problems of a state president or financial problems of a well-known singer . The illness of the ruling Prince of Monaco should have been seen as an event from the field of contemporary history. In general, people unknown to the public require greater protection than people known to the public. The ECHR also found that Caroline and Ernst August von Hannover are public figures.

In parallel proceedings, the ECHR had to decide on the admissibility of reporting on drug use by a German actor. He emphasized that the public interest in reporting on criminal proceedings can vary. The weighing criteria for this question included: a. the familiarity and previous behavior of the person, the gravity and nature of the act, the circumstances of the arrest, the method of obtaining information, the truth of the information and the fact whether these facts were already publicly known.

The two most recent judgments are generally welcomed from a jurisprudential perspective, but at the same time also criticized because the ECHR continues to taboo so-called “mere entertainment” and does not consider the empirical findings of communication studies when it comes to the question of the public interest in information regarding entertaining media reports. At the same time, this normative determination of the informational value of media reports surrenders freedom of opinion and the press to highly subjective judges' considerations, which contradicts the requirement of state neutrality.

Switzerland

The term is used in Article 13 of the Swiss Federal Data Protection Act (DSG). There it is considered a possible justification for the processing of personal data if the processing person “collects data about a public figure, provided the data relate to the work of this person in public”.

United States

In US law, the concept of the public figure is used when interpreting the 1st amendment to the constitution (first amendment) . Wear z. As public figures, based on tortious liability ( tort ) for defamation (libel) or infliction of emotional distress sue (infliction of mental pain) by defamatory statements, the burden of proving the falsity of the claim and must also certify that the The untruth was known to those expressing it or was unknown due to gross negligence (malice) . This was true in the case law of the Supreme Court - developed in the New York Times Co. Sullivan (1964) - initially only for public officials (public Officials) , but in 1967 the decision was Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (concerning a football coach) extended to public figures .

The focus here is less on whether the statement relates to a matter of public interest than in the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights and more on the person concerned. This leads to the fact that under certain circumstances abusive remarks about persons of public life are permissible under US law, which would be inadmissible under the ECHR.

Germany

Comparable is the so-called person of contemporary history , who is mentioned in the German Stasi Records Act and is also important in the interpretation of Sections 22 and 23 of the Art Copyright Act (KUG), which deals with the right to one's own image .

The above-mentioned laws specify the general right of personality , as z. B. in Germany in the constant jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court as an independent basic right from Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG), so-called free development of personality , i. V. m. Art. 1 GG ( human dignity ) is derived. The opposite pole is the freedom of opinion and freedom of the press guaranteed in Art. 5 GG . There is currently no uniformly regulated protection against publications in word and image, just as little are the above. vague legal terms have so far been legally defined. Therefore, the following definitions are based on judicial case reports .

The case law has so far defined that the public interest in information from the private sphere (but not from the intimate sphere ) of a person is justified if the person concerned is prominent or attracts public attention. Awareness can arise through rank or reputation, office or influence, skills or actions (the so-called Caroline von Monaco judgment II ). Examples are politicians, high office holders, artists or famous athletes. On the other hand, simply being present at sensational events is not sufficient. For children and young people, the undisturbed privacy has absolute priority over media interest.

See also

literature

  • Thomas Haug: Photo coverage of celebrities. With special consideration of the admissibility of the judicial assessment of the informational value of media reports. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2011, ISBN 978-3-8329-6528-0 .

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Jan Oster: Communication offenses law. A transnational investigation using the example of honor protection. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2019, pp. 231–232.
  2. ^ Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1165 (1998) - Right to respect for private life. Quoted in: Christina Holtz-Bacha: Media Policy for Europe II. The Council of Europe. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2011, p. 77.
  3. ↑ ECHR, Grand Chamber, judgment of February 7, 2012, Az. 40660/08 and 60641/08 ( Von Hannover II ), Kommunikation und Recht 2012, 179.
  4. ↑ ECHR, Grand Chamber, judgment of February 7, 2012, Az. 39954/08 ( Axel Springer AG ), Kommunikation und Recht 2012, 187.
  5. ↑ Thomas Haug, landmark judgments of the ECHR on press law - final defeat for Princess Caroline , communication and law, Editorial 3/2012.
  6. ^ Jan Oster: Communication offenses law. A transnational investigation using the example of honor protection. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2019, p. 117.
  7. ^ Jan Oster: Communication offenses law. A transnational investigation using the example of honor protection. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2019, p. 14.
  8. ↑ BVerfG AfP 2000, 76, 80.
  9. ↑ BVerfG, decision of December 15, 1999 , Az. 1 BvR 653/96.
  10. ↑ BGH NJW 1996, 1128, 1129.
  11. ↑ BVerfG AfP 2000, 76, 79.