Lebach judgment

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lebach judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) of June 5, 1973 is considered a fundamental judgment in German jurisprudence on the relationship between freedom of broadcasting and personal rights . The judgment can be found in the official collection of decisions BVerfGE 35, 202–245.

facts

In the 1969 soldier murder in Lebach , four sleeping guards were killed, one soldier seriously injured, and weapons and ammunition stolen during an attack on an ammunition dump . The main perpetrators were sentenced to life imprisonment in 1970 and one of the perpetrators was sentenced to six years imprisonment for aiding and abetting murder . The ZDF had completed a two-part television game in February 1972 and planned the broadcast for June of that year. It should first introduce the crime and those involved with names and pictures and then show the crime as a documentary play with actors. An application by the accomplice to prohibit the broadcast by means of an injunction was rejected by the Mainz Regional Court and the Koblenz Higher Regional Court in October 1972. The accomplice, who was sentenced to six years' imprisonment and shortly before the examination of the remaining suspended sentence, lodged a constitutional complaint against this decision . The BVerfG issued an interim order in which the broadcast was prohibited until the main issue was clarified, which then took place in the judgment.

Summary of the judgment

The Senate first recognizes the freedom of broadcasting : The protection of broadcasting freedom therefore includes the selection of the material, the manner of presentation and also the form of a broadcast.

When weighing the freedom of broadcasting against personal rights, however, the greater suggestive effect and reach of television compared to the press, radio and film must be taken into account.

As a rule, the public's interest in information, and thus freedom of broadcasting, outweighs the perpetrator's protection of privacy when reporting on serious crimes.

However, in the event of a later report that no longer serves the interest in up-to-date information, a new consideration must be made. Here, the personal rights of the convicted and incarcerated perpetrator can prevail, especially if the report endangers social rehabilitation .

Here the BVerfG affirmed such a threat to rehabilitation and thus decided the collision of the basic rights in favor of the protection of personality from Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG in connection with Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG.

For the reasons

BVerfGE 35, 202, 231 f.

“If one weighs the circumscribed interest in information in a corresponding reporting on television in general against the inevitably associated intrusion into the perpetrator's personal sphere, then the interest in information generally deserves priority for current reporting on criminal offenses. Anyone who breaks legal peace [...] must in principle also allow the public interest in information aroused by his act to be satisfied in a community based on the principle of free communication in the usual ways. "

BVerfGE 35, 202, 233 f.

"If the public interest-inducing act with criminal prosecution and criminal conviction has experienced the just reaction of the community required in the interests of the public good, and if the public has been adequately informed about this, continued or repeated interventions in the perpetrator's personal sphere can be made beyond this usually do not justify; they would impose a new social sanction on the perpetrator, especially in the case of television programs with a corresponding range. "

Another decision by the Federal Constitutional Court on a television documentary on the Lebach murders

In 1996 the television station Sat.1 wanted to broadcast a television documentary about the Lebach murders. One of the perpetrators, on the other hand, successfully sued for an omission, whereas the television station Sat.1 went to the Federal Constitutional Court. The court lifted the ban on the broadcasting of the documentation on the grounds (BVerfG, 1 BvR 348/98 of November 25, 1999) that there was no evidence in the offending documentation for the identification of those involved (by persons who were not known to the perpetrators at the time) appropriate information would be given. The court continued literally:

“The general right of personality does not give criminals the right not to be confronted with the crime in public at all. Such a right cannot be inferred from either the 1973 Lebach judgment or other decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court. In the Lebach ruling, the Federal Constitutional Court only found that the right of personality offers protection against the media being involved in the “person of a criminal and his or her private sphere” for an unlimited period of time. A complete immunization against the unwanted presentation of personality-relevant events was not meant. The decisive factor is always the extent to which reporting can impair personal development. "

literature

  • Volker Lilienthal : Deposed ready for broadcast. ZDF, SAT.1 and the Lebach soldier murder. Vistas Verlag, Berlin 2001.

Web links