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… THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5. The applicant, Ms Gabriele Fürst-Pfeifer, is an Austrian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Mödling. She is a psychiatrist and has been registered since the year 2000 as a psychological expert for court proceedings in custody and contact-rights-related disputes and decisions on public care as well as child abuse. Specialised in the psychological examination of children and adolescents, her focus is mainly on custody and contact-rights-related disputes. 6. The online publication “meinbezirk.at” was published and edited by the “Print” Multimedia Company GmbH, a private company which had its registered office in St. Pölten. 7. The regional weekly print publication Bezirksblatt, which was sent to every household of the district free, was published and edited by the “Print” Zeitungsverlag GmbH, a private company which had its registered office in Innsbruck. A. The published article 8. On 23 December 2008 an article was published in “meinbezirk.at” as well as in the print version of Bezirksblatt, which stated as follows: “The quality of experts in the spotlight (Gutachterqualität im Visier) Disclosed: Court Expert for custody proceedings a case for therapy (Aufgedeckt: NÖ Sorgerechts-Sachverständige selbst ein Therapie-Fall) Suffering from up-and-down mood swings, panic attacks, suicidal thoughts and hallucinations, together with paranoid ideas - but working as a court-appointed expert. In the last 12 years she has examined over 3.000 married couples in custody-related disputes. Now it seems, it gets rough for [the applicant] as an expert report about her psychological condition has been disclosed ... A psychological expert report by Dr. M. was commissioned in 1993 in the course of civil proceedings (action because of an alleged breach of promise of marriage) which unearthed the deficiencies of [the applicant] described above. Moreover, Dr. M. came to the conclusion that the applicant’s impairments were hereditary, as the history of her family showed an accumulation of these impairments. Three years later, the applicant was introduced to the “expert community” at the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court, and her integrity was beyond reproach for a decade - until now.” 9. The passage was followed by comments by a member of the Green Party, who had made a criminal complaint against the applicant with the Public Prosecutor’s office, the Youth Advocate at the Regional Government of Lower Austria, and the Vice-President of the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court, who was responsible for managing the list of experts at the court. At the end of the article it was mentioned that the applicant was no longer answering her phone and had withdrawn from all her cases. 10. As a result of the article the applicant was confronted with questions related to it from colleagues and patients, and proceedings were initiated at the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court to clarify whether she was still fit to work as a court-appointed expert. In the course of those proceedings the applicant’s mental status was also set to be examined. B. The proceedings against the “Print” Multimedia Company GmbH concerning the online publication 11. On 14 January 2009 the applicant lodged an action with the St. Pölten Regional Court. She sought damages under section 8a of the Media Act (Mediengesetz) and the publication of the judgment claiming that the article and in particular the passages dealing with the psychological expert report on the applicant had violated her intimate personal sphere and compromised her publicly. However, she did not argue that the expert report had been obtained unlawfully. 12. On 3 April 2009 the St. Pölten Regional Court (Landesgericht St. Pölten) allowed the applicant’s action, ordered the publisher to pay damages in the amount of 5,000 euros (EUR) and the operative part of the judgment to be published. Furthermore, the publisher was to bear the costs of the www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2016/431.html 3/23