본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

German Basic Rights Refined by the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights - The Development of Privacy and Self- Determination in German Jurisprudence

Judith Janna Maertens
한국법제연구원 (Korea Legislation Research Institute)|2020.05|Korea Legislation Research Institute Journal of Law and Legislation|제10권 제1호|pp. 7-43|DOI 10.22851/kjll.2020.10.1.001

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

Self-determinationGerman LawMargin of AppreciationECtHR’s Case LawRight to Privacy uder Article 8 ECHRThe General Right of PersonalityRight to Die in DignityCooperation of Constitutional Courts
주제분류법학

초록

The relationship between the European Constitutional Courts and the European Court of Human Rights in the multilevel system of human rights protection has been discussed intensively. In fact, the ECtHR has a strong influence on the German Constitutional Court and vice versa the ECtHR has been strongly paid attention to the German jurisprudence. Gradually, a steady cooperation between the courts has been developed. The article will explain how German Basic Rights were redefined by the case law of the ECtHR. The development of the right of privacy and the right of self-determination under Article 8 ECHR and the corresponding general right of personality in German law will illustrate the impact of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence in German law. In this respect, the article will discuss the cases Von Hannover v. Germany in order to show privacy protection against the media. Then, the case Koch v. Germany will clarify the scope of self-determination regarding the right to die in dignity. Finally, the article will argue that the ECtHR’s case law and the domestic jurisprudence are interwoven in a complex system of human rights protection and that the cooperation of the courts is substantial for an effective protection system of human rights in Europe.

Abstract

The relationship between the European Constitutional Courts and the European Court of Human Rights in the multilevel system of human rights protection has been discussed intensively. In fact, the ECtHR has a strong influence on the German Constitutional Court and vice versa the ECtHR has been strongly paid attention to the German jurisprudence. Gradually, a steady cooperation between the courts has been developed. The article will explain how German Basic Rights were redefined by the case law of the ECtHR. The development of the right of privacy and the right of self-determination under Article 8 ECHR and the corresponding general right of personality in German law will illustrate the impact of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence in German law. In this respect, the article will discuss the cases Von Hannover v. Germany in order to show privacy protection against the media. Then, the case Koch v. Germany will clarify the scope of self-determination regarding the right to die in dignity. Finally, the article will argue that the ECtHR’s case law and the domestic jurisprudence are interwoven in a complex system of human rights protection and that the cooperation of the courts is substantial for an effective protection system of human rights in Europe.

참고문헌 (82)

  1. "Eur. Ct. H.R., October 3, 1983, DR 35, 30 (G and E v. Norway)", ~ (1983)
  2. "Eur. Ct. H.R., February 21, 1990, Series A No. 172 (Powell und Rayner v. United Kingdom)", ~ (1990)
  3. "Eur. Ct. H.R., October 22, 1981, Series A No. 45 (Dudgeon v. United Kingdom)", ~ (1981)
  4. "Eur. Ct. H.R., Mar. 26, 1987, Series A No. 116 (Leander v. Sweden)", ~ (1987)
  5. "Eur. Ct. H.R., Jul. 11, 2002, App. No. 28957", 95 (Christine Goodwin v. United Kingdom), 2002
  6. "Eur. Ct. H.R., Aug. 13, 1981, Series A No. 43, (Webster, James und Young v. United Kingdom)", ~ (1981)
  7. "Eur. Ct. H.R., Dec. 7, 1976, Series A No. 24 (Handyside v. United Kingdom)", ~ (1976)
  8. "Eur. Ct. H.R., Nov. 25, 1996, App. No. 17419", 90, Rep. 1996-V (Wingrove v. United Kingdom), 1996
  9. "Eur. Ct. H.R., Apr. 23, 1997, Reports 1997-II, (X., Y. und Z v. United Kingdom)", ~ (1997)
  10. "Eur. Ct. H.R., Jul. 10, 2003, Reports 2003-IX, (Murphy v. Ireland)", ~ (2003)
  11. "Eur. Ct. H.R., Apr. 29, 2002, App. No. 2346", 02 (Pretty v. United Kingdom), 2002
  12. "Eur. Ct. H.R., Dec. 16, 1992, Series A No. 251-B (Niemietz v. Germany)", ~ (1992)
  13. "Eur. Ct. H.R., Jun. 24, 2004, App No. 59320", 00 (von Hannover v. Germany (No. 1)), 2004
  14. "Eur. Ct. H.R., Feb. 7, 2012, App Nos. 40660", 08 and 60641, pp.2012, ~
  15. "Eur. Ct. H.R., Feb. 7, 2012, App. No. 39954", 08 (Axel Springer v. Germany), 2012
  16. "Eur. Ct. H.R., Jan. 20, 2011, App No. 31322", 07 (Haas v. Switzerland), 2011
  17. "Eur. Ct. H.R., Jul. 19, 2012, App No. 497", 09 (Koch v. Germany), 2012
  18. "Eur. Ct. H.R., Jul. 18, 2019, App No. 14047", 16 (zu Guttenberg v. Germany), 2019
  19. "BVerfGE 7, 198 (Lüth)", ~
  20. "BVerfGE 14, 212", ~
  21. "BVerfGE 27, 1 (Mikrozensus)", ~
  22. "BVerfGE 27, 344 (Scheidungsakten)", ~
  23. "BVerfGE 32, 373 (Patientenkartei)", ~
  24. "BVerfGE 34, 269 (Soraya)", ~
  25. "BVerfGE 49, 286", ~
  26. "BVerfGE 65, 1 (Volkszählung)", ~
  27. "BVerfGE 74, 358", ~
  28. "BVerfGE 83, 119", ~
  29. "BVerfGE 84, 192", ~
  30. "BVerfGE 101, 361 (Caroline von Monaco)", ~
  31. "BVerfGE 111, 307 (Görgülü)", ~
  32. "BVerfGE 120, 180 (Caroline von Hannover)", ~
  33. "German Constitutional Court, October 10, 2017 – 1 BvR 2019", 16, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2017, 3643 (Das dritte Geschlecht)
  34. "German Federal Constitutional Court, February 26, 2020, - 2 BvR 2347", 15, 2020
  35. "BGHZ 24, 72 (Krankenpapiere)", ~
  36. "BGHZ 26, 349 (Herrenreiter)", ~
  37. "BGHZ 27, 284 (Tonband)", ~
  38. "BGHZ 30, 7 (Caterina Valentine)", ~
  39. "BGHZ 35, 363 (Ginseng-Wurzel)", ~
  40. "BGHZ 131, 332", ~
  41. "Federal Court, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2007", ~ (1977)
  42. "BVerwGE 158, 142", ~
  43. "BVerwG, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2019, 2789", ~
  44. "Administrative Court Cologne, February 21, 2006, 7 K 2040", 05, 1673-1677 (Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht (2006)), 2006
  45. Badura, Peter, "Staatsrecht – Systematische Erläuterung des Grundgesetzes" (2018), C. H. Beck
  46. Barendt, Eric, "Freedom of Speech" (2005), Oxford University Press
  47. Breitenmoser, Stephan, "Der Schutz der Privatsphäre gemäß Art. 8 EMRK: Das Recht auf Achtung des Privat- und Familienlebens, der Wohnung und des Briefverkehrs" (1986), Helbing and Lichtenhahn
  48. Cremer, Hans-Joachim, "Human rights and the protection of privacy in tort law: a comparison between English and German law" (2011), Routledge-Cavendish
  49. Detjen, Joachim, "Die Werteordnung des Grundgesetzes" (2013), VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften
  50. Dzehtsiarou, Kanstantsin, "European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights" (2015), Cambridge University Press
  51. Möllers, Christoph, "Das Grundgesetz – Geschichte und Inhalt" (2019), C. H. Beck
  52. Schlaich, Klaus, "Das Bundesverfassungsgericht" (2018), C. H. Beck
  53. Vellemann, J. David, "Beyond Price – Essays on Birth and Death, 21" (2015), Open Book Publishers
  54. Maunz, Theodor, "Grundgesetz Kommentar" (2018), C. H. Beck
  55. Meyer-Ladewig, Jens, "EMRK" (2017), Nomos
  56. Sachs, Michael, "Grundgesetz" (2018), C. H. Beck
  57. Daiber, Birgit, "Der Einfluss der EGMR-Rechtsprechung auf die Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts", Die Öffentliche Verwaltung (2018)
  58. Gaede, "Carsten Die Strafbarkeit der geschäftsmäßigen Förderung des Suizids – § 217 StGB", Juristische Schulung (2016)
  59. Grabenwarter, Christoph, "Schutz der Privatsphäre versus Pressefreiheit: Europäische Korrektur eines Sonderweges?", Archiv für Presserecht (2004)
  60. Grewe, Constance, "Vergleich zwischen den Interpretationsmethoden europäischer Verfassungsgerichte und des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte", Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (2001)
  61. Hillgruber, Christian, "Die Erlaubnis zum Erwerb eines Betäubungsmittels in tödlicher Dosis für Sterbenskranke – grundrechtlich gebotener Zugang zu einer Therapie “im weiteren Sinne,“", Juristenzeitung (2017)
  62. Hutchinson, Michael R., "The Margin of Appreciation in the European Court of Human Rights", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 48(3) (1999)
  63. Letsas, George, "Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(4) (2006)
  64. Klass, Nadine, "Der Schutz der Privatsphäre durch den EGMR im Rahmen von Medienberichterstattungen", Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2014)
  65. Klatt, Matthias, "Positive Obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights", Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (2011)
  66. Krämer, Rike U., "Der Dialog der Gerichte - Die Fortentwicklung des Persönlichkeitsschutzes im europäischen Mehrebenenverbund", EUROPARECHT, 2 (2015)
  67. Lindner, Josef Franz Lindner, "Sterbehilfe in Deutschland – Mögliche Regelungsoptionen", Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (2020)
  68. Neumann-Duesberg, Horst, "Berichterstattung über absolute und relative Personen der Zeitgeschichte", Juristen Zeitung (1960)
  69. Märten, Judith Janna, "Personality Rights and Freedom of Expression – A Journey through the Development of German Jurispridence under the Influence of the European Court of Human Rights", Journal of Media Law, (2) (2012)
  70. Ohly, Ansgar, "Artistic Freedom Versus Privacy – A Delicate Balance. The Esra Case Analysed from a Comparative Law Perspective", ICC (2008)
  71. Phillipson, Gavin, "Horizontal Effect and the Constitutional Constraint", Modern Law Review, 74(6) (2011)
  72. Sachs, Michael, "Grundrechte: Grundrechtsschutz für Selbsttötung", Juristische Schulung (2017)
  73. Schäfer, Klaus P., "Das Selbstbestimmungsrecht", Neue Justiz – Zeitschrift für Rechtsentwicklung und Rechtsprechung (2019)
  74. Teichmann, Christoph, "Abschied von der absoluten Person der Zeitgeschichte", Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (2007)
  75. Voßkuhle, Andreas, "Multilevel cooperation of the European constitutional courts", European Constitutional Law Review, 6 (2010)
  76. Warran, Samuel D., "The Right to Privacy", Harvard Law Review, 4 (1890)
  77. Zoethout, Carla M., "The Dilemma of Constitutional Comparativism", Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (2011)
  78. "Der Spiegel"[URL]
  79. "Dem Staat die Herrschaft über den Tod genommen"[URL]
  80. "BVerfG verhandelt über § 217 StGB: Es bleibt an den Ärzten hängen"[URL]
  81. "Dutch Doctor who euthanized Alzheimer’s patient cleared of criminal charges"[URL]
  82. "German Court Overturns Ban on Assisted Suicide"[URL]

관련 논문AI추천

The German Federal Constitutional Court - Past, Present and Future앙겔리카 누스베르거헌법재판연구원 · 헌법재판연구2021 · 제8권 제2호유럽인권재판소의 구제절차와 판결의 국내법적 효력-독일의 사례를 중심으로-이형석법학연구소 · 원광법학2014 · 제30권 제1호EU Protection of the Right to Privacy and Right to Personal Data and their Connection to The Gonzales Case and Beyond티티리가한국법제연구원 · Korea Legislation Research Institute Journal of Law and Legislation2020 · 제10권 제1호Die Urteilsverfassungsbeschwerde und das Verhältnis von Verfassungsgericht und Fachgerichten in DeutschlandDieter Grimm법학연구소 · 서울대학교 법학2014 · 제55권 제1호The development of the European Union and the decisions of the German Constitutional CourtFrank Bohn서울시립대학교 법학연구소 · 서울법학2012 · 제20권 제2호The evolving concept of the family under German Constitutional Law이현정헌법재판연구원 · 헌법재판연구2024 · 제11권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (5건)

Nigerian Courts and Human Rights Jurisprudence: Promoting Non-discrimination in the Context of Women’s RightsOti Anukpe Ovrawahpp. 45-77Korea’s Judicial Interpretation and Application of International Law정명현pp. 79-102Protection of Improvement Invention Under Indonesia’s Patent LawMuhammad Hawinpp. 103-138EU Protection of the Right to Privacy and Right to Personal Data and their Connection to The Gonzales Case and Beyond티티리가pp. 139-164Directions towards the Improvement of Regulatory Legislation on New Technologies and Industries in the 21st Century박균성pp. 166-187
원문 보기