CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 décembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 January 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 11229/21 Tobias CZECKAY against Germany lodged on 19 February 2021 communicated on 9 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the domestic courts to order a search engine provider to desist from listing in the engine’s search results a website which entailed allegedly inaccurate and incomplete statements about the applicant’s professional conduct as a lawyer during civil proceedings, when searching for the applicant’s name. The statements on the website at issue were available since September 2009. In May 2014 the applicant unsuccessfully asked the search engine provider to delist the website from the engine’s search results and subsequently initiated proceedings before the Cologne Regional Court. Since September 2016 the website was not available and not listed in the search results anymore. On 2 November 2016 the Regional Court ordered the search engine provider to desist from listing the respective website in the engine’s search results. The Court of Appeal set aside the Regional Court’s judgment and dismissed the applicant’s request. By a judgment of 24 July 2018 the Federal Court of Justice confirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision. It held that a search engine provider was only required to delist search results if they had, through a specific request, obtained knowledge of an obvious and at first glance clearly recognisable infringement. In addition, as the statements only concerned the applicant’s professional sphere and the applicant was still working as a lawyer, there was still an informational interest in the statements, notwithstanding the lapse of time. On 20 September 2018 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint. While the constitutional complaint was pending before the Federal Constitutional Court, the Federal Court of Justice, in a judgment of 27 July 2020 (VI ZR 405/18), changed its approach to the question when a search engine provider was required to delist websites. After the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union had come into force, it was not necessary that search engine providers had obtained knowledge of an obvious infringement through a specific request before they were required to act. On 8 September 2020 the Federal Constitutional Court decided not to admit the applicant’s constitutional complaint for adjudication (1 BvR 165/19). It held that, since the website in question had not been listed in the search results since 2016 and the Federal Court of Justice had changed its case-law, there was no reason to admit the constitutional complaint. Invoking Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained that the domestic courts failed to protect his reputation and his right to respect for private life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Given that the respective website was unavailable and not listed in the search engine results anymore before the judgment of the Regional Court of 2 November 2016, can the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34 (compare Gäfgen v.   Germany   [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 115 et seq., ECHR 2010; Bivolaru v.   Romania (no.   2) , no. 66580/12, §§ 168 et seq., 2 October 2018; and Mateut v.   Romania (dec.), no. 35959/12, §§ 31 et seq., 1 March 2022)?   2.     Has there been an attack on the applicant’s reputation which attained a sufficient level of seriousness and was made in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life in order for Article 8 to come into play (compare Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no.   39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012; Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no.   76639/11, § 112, 25   September 2018; and Hurbain v. Belgium [GC], no.   57292/16, §   189, 4   July 2023)?   3.     Has the refusal of the domestic courts to order the search engine provider to desist from listing the respective website in its search results constituted a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention (compare Hurbain , cited above; Axel   Springer AG , cited above; M.L. and W.W. v.   Germany , nos. 60798/10 and   65599/10, §§ 86 et seq., 28 June 2018; and, mutatis mutandis , Biancardi v.   Italy , no. 77419/16, §§   46 et seq., 25 November 2021)?