Caroline von Monaco judgment I

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Logo on the decisions of the Constitutional Court

In German jurisprudence, the Caroline von Monaco judgment I is a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) of January 14, 1998 , which deals with the scope of freedom of the press and due diligence requirements for the press. The occasion was a counter-representation claim by Caroline von Hannover (at that time still from Monaco) against a headline in the Neue Blatt and a counter- representation claim by Franziska van Almsick against “Das Neue Schnell und Aktuell”.

facts

In the constitutional complaint, three proceedings were combined.

  1. The magazine “Das Neue Blatt” published an article about an allegedly imminent wedding of Princess Caroline of Monaco and the related preparations by the residents of the village of Saint Rémy. The article was announced in the lower middle of the left column of the front page as an "exclusive report". In contrast, Caroline von Hanover obtained an injunction to print a counter-statement on the front page. “Das Neue Blatt” printed the reply, but the publisher, after having been unsuccessful in the civil courts, lodged a constitutional complaint because of a violation of the freedom of the press .
  2. The magazine "Das Neue Schnell und Aktuell" had announced a report on an allegedly imminent wedding of Franziska van Almsick on its front page. Franziska van Almsick obtained an interim injunction to print a counter-statement on the front page and a revocation in the inner part. The magazine printed both inside and only announced the counter-notification on the front page. The civil courts then confirmed Franziska van Almsick's claim to have the reply printed on the front page. The magazine followed suit, but again filed a constitutional complaint.
  3. In addition to the reply, Franziska van Almsick and her boyfriend at the time demanded a correction on the front page. The magazine was also unsuccessful in these proceedings and filed a constitutional complaint.

Principles of the judgment

  • "1. The basic right of freedom of the press ( Article 5, Paragraph 1, Clause 2 of the Basic Law) does not require that the front page of press products be kept free from counter-statements or corrections. "
  • "2. It does not violate the basic right of freedom of the press that the right to reply does not require the existence of a defamation or proof of the untruth of the first communication or the truth of the reply. "
  • "3. After careful research, the press is not prevented from reporting on events or circumstances whose truth is not certain at the time of publication. The obligation to correct allegations of fact which have proven to be untrue and which continue to affect the person concerned ( Art. 2 Para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 1 Para. 1 GG) does not inappropriately restrict the freedom of the press. "

For the reasons

“The protection of the fundamental right [freedom of the press] extends to the title page of a publication. This is usually of particular importance. It shapes the identity of a publication organ among the multitude of press products and serves as a distinguishing feature for the reader. In addition, it contains those communications that appear particularly important to those responsible for the press product for journalistic or strategic advertising reasons. For this reason, greater care is taken in the printing and graphic design of the title page. This is particularly true for newspapers and magazines, which are sold less by subscription than by free sale and therefore have to recruit the public's interest with each issue. "(Rz. 72)
"The [...] protection of personality under civil law and criminal law does not make the restriction of freedom of the press by § 11 HbgPrG [right of reply] superfluous. With the help of this protection, the person concerned can, under certain conditions, obtain omission, correction or revocation of statements, as well as compensation and punishment of the person responsible for the statement. The legal remedies, however, in no case lead to a right of objection on the part of the person concerned in the medium that reported on him. As far as revocation or correction come into consideration, which could exceed the power of persuasiveness of the counter-representation, the claim cannot usually be realized in a timely manner because, in contrast to the counter-representation claim, it presupposes the establishment of the untruth of the first communication. "(Margin no. 80)
"The protection of privacy is not overstretched in the regulation at the expense of freedom of the press. The reply is always bound to an initial press release. Only those who have first been made the subject of public discussion can request a copy of their representation. Furthermore, the right of reply is limited to notifications of fact. The expression of opinions through the press is not covered by this right. Finally, the claim is also limited in terms of subject matter and scope by the initial notification. The person concerned can only object to the facts contained in the initial notification and must maintain an appropriate framework, which is regularly determined by the scope of the objected text. "(Rz. 81)
“The fact that the press must print a reply even if it is convinced of the correctness of the first communication does not raise any constitutional concerns either. The fact that the counter-representation is not truthful is a consequence of the requirement of ensuring the same journalistic effect following the state's duty to protect personal rights. The rapid realization of the counter claim would fail if the procedure were burdened with clarifying the question of truth. In contrast to revocation and rectification, the counter-representation does not force the press to deviate from its view of things. Furthermore, the regulation leaves room for an interpretation according to which, in cases of obvious untruth in the counter-statement, a legitimate interest in its reprint is denied (see BGH, NJW 1967, p. 562; OLG Karlsruhe, AfP 1992, p. 373 <375>) "(Margin no. 83)
“Furthermore, the importance of the freedom of the press, protected by Article 5, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the Basic Law, is to be taken into account when determining the location and presentation of the reply and the correction. The importance of the freedom of the press is not misunderstood by the fact that counter-statements and corrections are also placed on the front page of press products. Article 5, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the Basic Law does not require that title pages be kept free from counter-statements. Because of their special importance for a press product, counter-statements on the front page regularly interfere more deeply with the freedom of the press than counter-statements on the inside of the page. However, they are justified by the fact that, because of the increased attention that the front pages attract and the broader readership they find, the impairment of personal rights is more sensitive. "(Rz. 93)

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ BVerfGE 97, 125 , Az. 1 BvR 1861/93, 1864/96, 2073/97.