Designation of "chicken coop" for hotel not abusive criticism

Here is something amusing to read from Stuttgart again. The 4th Civil Senate of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) in its judgment of 11.09.2013 (4 U 88/13) came to the conclusion that the designation "chicken coop" for a hotel operation can be justified and in the case decided was also in order.

The guest, who had apparently arrived with different expectations, subsequently harshly criticised the hotel he had chosen, "Hühnerhof", in a hotel review portal. Under the heading "Not Hühnerhof, but Hühnerstall" he complained, inter alia, about the "station atmosphere" prevailing there, the unmanned reception desk and the unreasonable breakfast.

The hotel operator did not like that, which is why he promptly sued the guest for an injunction. The term "chicken coop" suggested a dirty, unhygienic condition of the hotel, which is why the statement no longer fell within the scope of the freedom of expression of freedom of opinion, but was rather a matter of pure abusive criticism from a dissatisfied hotel guest.

The court's decision

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Stuttgart, like the lower court (Regional Court (LG) Rottweil) before it, did not share this view. Abusive criticism is only present if defamation is the primary aim of the statements and the disparagement of the affected party is the focus. In the opinion of the judges, this condition was not met here because the term "chicken coop" is not associated with hygienic shortcomings but with disorder and organisational deficiencies.
Also, the "station atmosphere" is merely a metaphor for a cool and unfriendly furnishing and is therefore also purely an expression of opinion.
According to the court, the interpretation chosen by the hotel operator is so far removed that – if at all – only several intermediate steps of reasoning lead to it. This means that a primary defamation must be denied.

Conclusion

The decision becomes clear if one considers the meaning of the sentence "Here it is like in a chicken coop". That is more about chaotic conditions, less or not at all about hygienic deficiencies. Perhaps the term also stands for cramped conditions, which one might have had to verify as a statement of fact. However, this was not discussed further. The court namely denied altogether the existence of a statement of fact.