D.H., arrêt Colozza du 12 février 1985, série A n° 89, p. 14, par. 28; arrêt Pfeifer et Plankl c. Autriche du 25 février 1992, à paraître dans la série A n° 227, par. 37).

the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether there has been a violation of Article 6 in this case (see, among other authorities, Standard Verlags GmbH and Krawagna-Pfeifer

  39954/08, § 84, 7 February 2012 and Pfeifer v. Austria , no. 12556/03, §   38, 15 November 2007).

It further notes that a person’s reputation forms part of his or her personal identity and psychological integrity and, therefore, also falls within the scope of his or her “private life” (see Pfeifer

Where, as in the present case, there is question of attacking the reputation of individuals and thus undermining their rights as guaranteed in Article 8 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Pfeifer v.

Article 8 of the Convention, the Court has to determine whether the principles inherent to Article 10 were properly applied by the Austrian courts when examining the applicant’s actions (see Fürst-Pfeifer

there may be any inconsistency, does not amount to a situation where a failure to comply with domestic requirements is sufficient to call into question the impartiality of a judge (see, for example, Pfeifer

Finally, Article 8 deals with the issues of protection of honour and reputation as part of the right to respect for private life (see Pfeifer v.

  64915/01, §   70, ECHR 2004 ‑ VI; and Pfeifer v. Austria , no. 12556/03, §   35, 15 November 2007). The relevant parts of Article 8 read as follows: “1.

It cannot be said, therefore, that he unequivocally and intentionally waived his rights under Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis , Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, judgment of 25 February 1992, § 38).

Furthermore, in the case of procedural rights, in order for a waiver to be effective for Convention purposes, it requires minimum guarantees commensurate to its importance (see Pfeifer and Plankl v.

  21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007 ‑ IV; Pfeifer v. Austria , no.   12556/03, 15 November 2007; Vitrenko and Others v.

the Court finds it important to reiterate that the right to be tried by an impartial tribunal is of essential importance, and that the exercise of that right cannot depend on the parties alone (see Pfeifer

the Court finds it important to reiterate that the right to be tried by an impartial tribunal is of essential importance, and that the exercise of that right cannot depend on the parties alone (see Pfeifer

Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series   A No. 171, § 66 and Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, judgment of 25   February   1992, Series A No. 227, § 37). 46.

to an independent and impartial tribunal in view of the public interest involved, notably the importance of the requirements of independence and impartiality for confidence in judicial system (see Pfeifer

France ([GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007 ‑ IV); Pfeifer v. Austria (no. 12556/03, 15 November 2007); Vitrenko and Others v.

The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise (see, for instance, Pfeifer v.   Bulgaria , no. 24733/04, §§ 51-52, 17 February 2011; Prescher v.

Portugal (dec.), no. 35943/02, ECHR 2003 ‑ XII; Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria , 25 February 1992, § 37, Series A no. 227, and Zu Leiningen v.