03/02/2020 FURST-PFEIFER v. AUSTRIA - 33677/10 (No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 : Respect for priva… content of the article under consideration was undisputed in the whole proceedings. Furthermore, the content of the article was balanced, informing on facts and not only intended to satisfy public curiosity. Beside a catchy sub-headline only facts and comments by third persons, clearly distinguished by quotation marks, were included. It was clearly stated that the expert report dated back to court proceedings in 1993 and that the applicant’s integrity had not been questioned for more than a decade. These facts were set out without any negative comment by the author. 45. The Court further notes that a serious debate on the mental health status of a psychological expert, evoked by reasoned suspicions, has to be seen as a debate of general interest, as an expert in court proceedings is required to meet standards of physical and psychological fitness. This is all the more important as a court certified psychological expert, such as the applicant, plays an important and sometimes decisive role in the decision making process in child care proceedings and thus strongly influences not only the fate of families but also of individuals in an early and sensitive stage of personal development. In the eyes of the parties to the proceedings and the general public there must not be any doubts as to the mental fitness of such an expert in order to maintain public trust in the judiciary. 46. The Court has already stated that, when it comes to the criticism of their actions, members of the judiciary should not be treated on an equal footing with politicians, as they do not lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed to the extent to which the latter do. Nonetheless, civil servants acting in an official capacity may nevertheless be subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than ordinary citizens (see with further references, July and SARL Libération v. France, no. 20893/03, § 74, ECHR 2008 (extracts)). The Courts of Appeal have based their decisions on the finding that the applicant, as a frequently appointed expert in court proceedings in the very sensitive field of child psychology and fosterage should be treated similarly to civil servants acting in an official capacity when it comes to examining whether a careful balance has been struck between the competing public and private interests. The Court does not see strong reasons to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts in regard to this finding. 47. Nonetheless the Court observes that those who act in an official capacity must enjoy public confidence in conditions free of undue perturbation if they are to be successful in performing their tasks and it may therefore prove necessary to protect them from offensive and abusive verbal attacks when on duty (see Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999-I). In the present case however, there is no need to weigh the requirements of such protection against the interests of the freedom of the press or of open discussion of matters of public concern, since the article under consideration did not contain offensive or abusive verbal attacks. 48. On these grounds, the Court is satisfied that the decisions of the Vienna Court of Appeal and of the Innsbruck Court of Appeal struck a fair balance between the competing interests in the present case. 49. Consequently, the Court concludes that there has not been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT 1. Decides, unanimously, to join the applications; 2. Declares, unanimously, the applications admissible; 3. Holds, by four votes to three, that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention; Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 May 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2016/431.html 9/23