Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Stambuk v. Germany

Stambuk v. Germany    [  ] STAMBUK v. GERMANY Freedom of expression – admissible Article 10 Imposition of fine on ophthalmologist by professional disciplinary body following publication of an article considered as an advertisement contrary to ethical rules On  November  a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights unani- mously declared admissible the application in the case of Stambuk v. Germany . Summary of the facts The District Disciplinary Court for Medical Practitioners imposed a fine of  ,  German 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 newspa- per. In the interview it was reported that the applicant had treated  patients using this laser technique, with  % 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 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Human Rights Case Digest Brill

Stambuk v. Germany

Human Rights Case Digest , Volume 12 (11-12): 1091 – Jan 1, 2001

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/stambuk-v-germany-nRnYUTFa05

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2001 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0965-934X
eISSN
1571-8131
DOI
10.1163/157181301401748315
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

   [  ] STAMBUK v. GERMANY Freedom of expression – admissible Article 10 Imposition of fine on ophthalmologist by professional disciplinary body following publication of an article considered as an advertisement contrary to ethical rules On  November  a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights unani- mously declared admissible the application in the case of Stambuk v. Germany . Summary of the facts The District Disciplinary Court for Medical Practitioners imposed a fine of  ,  German 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 newspa- per. In the interview it was reported that the applicant had treated  patients using this laser technique, with  % 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

Journal

Human Rights Case DigestBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.