The “view” has, in his report of 24. December 2014, violates the personality rights of Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin heavy and not justified. It says So in the judgment, which has published the Zug cantonal court, exactly one month after the main hearing of 10. April. The earlier certain day, has sued Ringier, because of the “look” had reported about sexual contact between her and a former fellow councillors, as well as possible desecration. The affected persons were shown with a picture and full name.
The ruling is a blow to Ringier in particular, because Spiess has announced Hegglin already, that you will sue for damages and Profits. Even harder is the fact that the court weighted with this judgment, the rights of personality of a very high weight for the tabloid media. It needs to be very good reasons to be allowed to persons with a picture and name of show, when it comes to their intimate life. The fact that Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin and Markus Hürlimann at the time of the incident, were both well-known political actors, and that alleged Crime was, for which Spiess-Hegglin to the hospital had to and Hürlimann in custody was not enough. Anyway, Ringier valid reasons that would justify such reporting is not asserted, writes to the court.
No banned from writing for the “view”
Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin has gained concern in your home, Ringier is the unlawful violation of privacy is guilty and must pay the relatively high satisfaction of 20’000 Swiss francs. In addition, the publisher shall bear the legal costs of Spiess-Hegglin, as well as the process of effort. Nevertheless, the assessment is differentiated: A write prohibition, such as Spiess had Hegglin demanded it, the “view”. First, the Newspapers haven’t reported about Spiess-Hegglin in connection with theceremony Ceremony, and, secondly, from the draw that you’ll do this. In addition, Jolanda Spiess reached-Hegglin yourself repeatedly to the media, to report on the events of the time.
Also, the “view do not need to apologize,” in Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin. An apology could not be demanded in case of violation of Personality rights according to Federal law, but only on a voluntary basis, as was done in the case of Thomas Borer.
all in All: Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin has received in large Parts of law and, therefore, a satisfaction to fought for what she had to in the past four and a half years to say anything. At the same time, the court made it clear that it is not only the media are to blame: “The applicant was responsible, that the media stopped the hype over a longer period of time,” it says in the judgment.
Full identification, the fatal impact
Regardless, the media should draw Lessons from this. First of all, The full identification of affected persons, in a case like this has fatal impact on their everyday lives. For years and years. Markus Hürlimann, it was not much better, although he was acting calm. Since the “glance”report is nothing more, as it was, he said once in an Interview. People need to be protected when it comes to your intimate life. Exception: There is clearly public with relevant reasons why the identity needs to be given.
And secondly, Even if a protagonist gets himself to the media or a carnival newspaper reports about them, this means no free pass for the press. (Editorial Tamedia)
Created: 10.05.2019, 16:53 PM