CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 novembre 2001

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 36 November 2001 Stambuk v. Germany (dec.) - 37928/97 Decision 22.11.2001 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Imposition of fine on ophthalmologist by professional disciplinary body following publication of an article considered as an advertisement contrary to ethical rules: admissible The District Disciplinary Court for Medical Practitioners imposed a fine of 2,000 marks on the applicant, an ophthalmologist, for having disregarded the ban on advertising in the relevant provisions of the Land Rules of Professional Ethics and the Act on the Councils for the Medical Professions. A journalist had come to meet the applicant in his surgery in order to discuss a new laser operation technique. An article was subsequently published in a newspaper. In the interview it was reported that the applicant had treated 400 patients using this laser technique, with 100% success. The applicant was reported to have stated that such operations depended notably on the professional experience of the practitioner. The article was also illustrated by a photograph of the applicant in his surgery. The Disciplinary Court considered that he had disregarded several provisions of the Rules of Professional Ethics, whereby no article concerning a practitioner and of an advertising character should be published. The applicant had breached these rules in giving a percentage of success of the operations he had carried out, referring to his professional experience and letting a photograph of him, taken in his professional environment, illustrate the article. The Disciplinary Appeals Court for Medical Practitioners dismissed his appeal and the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit his constitutional complaint. Admissible under Article 10.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes